The other reason I'm generally annoyed with the "Abolish X" crowd who actually DO mean "abolish X" and not a watered-down version is that ime they very rarely have fully thought out the implications of what they're demanding and then get angry when other people ask about it.
"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!
"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!
I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.
Like these aren't "gotcha" questions, they're legitimate problems you're going to have to contend with. And if you wave away all these questions with "you're just making up ridiculous scenarios" and "we'll think of something to fix that once we destroy the current system", then yeah actually, I DO think you care more about sounding radical than about making any kind of change.
You're missing the forest for the trees here.
I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."
Put another way, it doesn't mean "blow up the foundation & leave it libertarian", it just means "let's assume starting from scratch instead of incrementalism."
"Just look at the ideas that I have in the most positive light possible, please." how about I don't do that and instead think of all the ways that your terrible ideas could go horribly wrong. I.E. the most likely scenario.
Also.
You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.
How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?
This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.
People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.
If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.
As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.
The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.
"There should be no more police or prisons or family units ever!!" "uh huh sure sweet dreams sweetie do you want your pacy before I tuck you in"
"Abolish" is a word with a meaning. It doesn't mean "massively reduce the prevalence of" and it doesn't mean "overhaul the implementation of" and it doesn't mean "render obsolete and unnecessary". It means "completely do away with". It means "get rid of". If you say you're in favor of abolishing something, anyone who isn't in the weeds on leftist terminologyâmeaning MOST PEOPLEâis going to think you want to summarily ban that thing at the earliest convenience.
The immediate cultural touchstone a lot of people are going to have for usage of the word "abolish" is the abolition of slavery, AKA Abolitionism. Abolitionists did not want slavery to be phased out or made less harmful or to be more restricted or better regulated, they wanted it abolished. That's why they were called Abolitionists. Don't be surprised if when you call yourself an "[X] abolitionist" people think you want to abolish [X], using the same basic definition of "abolish" that the vast majority of English speakers use. And if that's not actually what you want to do, maybe consider calling yourself something else. I sincerely think it'll help your cause.
I mostly agree with this even though I might have different politics than op. I do think there's some unrighteous dismissals happening as well.
While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.
And related to the previous point, questions like "what do we do with all the murderers?" ignore the myriad of ways someone might get that accusation. That question is way too broad to give direct answer to.
I don't think asking people extremely basic, obvious, first-order questions is some kind of trick or unfairness.
Also, "abolish prison" are itself a very broad position, with broad consequences. Stands to reason that one would ask broad questions.
Frankly, if they can't - or won't - come up with answers for very common responses, that anyone could reasonably anticiapte, I think that's on them.
Similarly, family abolitionists are taking a broad stance. If their principles can't cover relatively simple hypotheticals, that's on them.
Taking someone at their word to expose flaws in their logic is not wrong.
Also, I notice you complained that one counterargument is a narrow hypothetical, and the other is too broad. What does that leave? Some vague area in the middle where the logical porridge is juuuust right?
I don't love how I worded my response but I didn't say anything about being tricked. I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to perfectly prescriptive. Partially because it's just one layperson on their concept of the idea, not the legislator currently writing the letter of the law.
Most importantly, I think it's more effective to engage in good faith discussion rather than mockery. Assuming the stance isn't immediately harmful and is coming from a place of wanting better for all.
Also, in regard to the specific hypotheticals. I've seen that turn into a gish gallop of increasingly unrealistic circumstances. Which tends to be more annoying than insightful. So please don't do that.
That's too general but getting into specifics is too specific and I've decided a prori it's going to be an increasingly unrealistic circumstance is not convincing..... 50% of the questions anyone not already a prison abolitionist has is too general, the other 50% of the questions is too specific, must all be 100% bad faith is not a great look.
In my original reply, I say the question is too broad to give a "direct" answer to, not that it couldn't be answered. This agrees with what I said in the reblog you're replying to now.
"I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to [be] perfectly prescriptive."
And with regard to the specific questions part, I mention gish gallop and "every single hypothetical someone can dream up". Clearly talking about a problem with an annoying argumentative style rather than a problem with specificity itself.
1)I'm sorry, I fail to see the distimction in the difference between can't be directly answered and can't be answered. 2)And yet when people asked you about the general, it was too general so no, 3)50% are too general, 50% are too specific, clearly it isn't just a problem with gish galloping.
An example of what I mean by an direct vs indirect answers.
Q: "what do we do with all the murderers?"
Direct: "lock them all in prison forever."
Indirect: "we have to look at the material conditions of each individual case and work with those involved to determine what the most appropriate outcome would be in order to serve justice in a way that isn't about punishing wrongdoers."
(Note: I'm not making either of those arguments, I'm illustrating my point.)
You didn't actually say anything about specifics, basically just said "nuh uh" so there's not much rebuttal I can really do.
The broad point I'm trying to make is the very common sentiment of "try to be open minded". This would apply to things like, maybe the alternative to prison isn't so neat or clean to have an easy answer in every situation. It also applies to, maybe just because this person mentions a topic (that has already been mentioned in a way also not talking about it) it doesn't mean the point is actually about that topic.
That thing you call a direct answer? That's otherwise known as an answer. That thing you call an indirect answer is a deconstruction of the question. It is a discussion of the question. It is an analysis of the question. It is ...many things...of the question.. What it isn't an answer. Also, there is a difference between being open-minded and being so open-minded your brain falls out!...I am perfectly aware of all the talking around the question in FAQs. I know that. I'm asking random tumblr..becuase the household names do not in fact answer the question.
What do we do with all the kids DHS has locked in cages?
Direct: we leave them there
Indirect: we have to work with each child and whatever records we have to find the best situation for each one that prioritizes their safety and wellbeing
Does that example work better for you? Or are you still going to be close minded?
