I really think that the word “abolish” is causing problems of understanding here. For most people, “abolish” conjures up the word “abolition,” as in the abolition of slavery. That was not a movement that made slavery optional for those who wanted it but kept it in place for those who still wanted to maintain the practice; it was emphatically a movement to make the very concept of slavery illegal (we could have a conversation about how successful it was in the context of the private prison complex, but that’s a whole other can of fish).
When we talk about abolishing something, we generally aren’t saying we’re going to reduce it as an obligation or pay less attention to it; we mean we’re going to do everything in our power to make it not exist anymore. If people assume you mean the latter when you actually mean the former, it’s going to cause confusion and derail the entire conversation into a cul de sac of definition, rather than addressing the actual topic we want to address.
I just made a comment realizing that I was arguing with someone that just was using a hard definition of “abolish” in their mind. Though in the context it is clearly using the and more systems based definition.
(1) to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law)
(2) to completely do away with (something)
Honestly, it’s an important thing to realize how reactionary thought is so good at connecting to emotional reactions that they truly redefine words or their contextual meanings. Every word becomes a “hard” definition if it is ever used by the left to explain structures. It becomes a hard definition that can invoke emotion.
In this case it comes from “Abolish the Police”. Even some people on “the left” have adopted the right wing definition since. By either being an anarchist or a “no I don’t mean abolish” liberal.
No, we mean abolish. We didn’t stutter. We know what words mean and will not adopt the frame of the reactionaries.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to “be careful” with language. The reactionaries in society will pervert the definition of whatever word one attempts to use to invoke an emotional response to defend the current structures.
The correct thing to do is to educate those that are willing to ask “what do you mean by abolish”?
If we could have anarchist not reinforcing the reactionary definitions that would help as well… But that’s a whole different story.
I really think that the word “abolish” is causing problems of understanding here. For most people, “abolish” conjures up the word “abolition,” as in the abolition of slavery. That was not a movement that made slavery optional for those who wanted it but kept it in place for those who still wanted to maintain the practice; it was emphatically a movement to make the very concept of slavery illegal (we could have a conversation about how successful it was in the context of the private prison complex, but that’s a whole other can of fish).
When we talk about abolishing something, we generally aren’t saying we’re going to reduce it as an obligation or pay less attention to it; we mean we’re going to do everything in our power to make it not exist anymore. If people assume you mean the latter when you actually mean the former, it’s going to cause confusion and derail the entire conversation into a cul de sac of definition, rather than addressing the actual topic we want to address.
I just made a comment realizing that I was arguing with someone that just was using a hard definition of “abolish” in their mind. Though in the context it is clearly using the and more systems based definition.
(1) to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law) (2) to completely do away with (something)
Honestly, it’s an important thing to realize how reactionary thought is so good at connecting to emotional reactions that they truly redefine words or their contextual meanings. Every word becomes a “hard” definition if it is ever used by the left to explain structures. It becomes a hard definition that can invoke emotion.
In this case it comes from “Abolish the Police”. Even some people on “the left” have adopted the right wing definition since. By either being an anarchist or a “no I don’t mean abolish” liberal.
No, we mean abolish. We didn’t stutter. We know what words mean and will not adopt the frame of the reactionaries.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to “be careful” with language. The reactionaries in society will pervert the definition of whatever word one attempts to use to invoke an emotional response to defend the current structures.
The correct thing to do is to educate those that are willing to ask “what do you mean by abolish”?
If we could have anarchist not reinforcing the reactionary definitions that would help as well… But that’s a whole different story.