Don’t use the slogan “votes for women,” it turns off voters we need in order to win.

“We Shall Overcome” is too inaccurate. Don’t say it. It could mean anything. What *policy* is it advocating?

People, “abolish slavery” doesn’t actually mean ABOLISH slavery, which is impractical and undesirable. It just means slavery REFORM, so say that. We need those suburban pro-slavery votes ... unless you don’t WANT more humane slavery??

This thread sure is tickling some consciences tonight.

Look, it’s a fact that the advances we now take for granted we’re not just unpopular but hated. Their slogans were divisive. Their causes were losers until they won.

Apply this knowledge to today. You’ll see who you would have been then by who you are now. It’s pretty simple.

A whole lot of people sure seem to think the main way justice movements succeed is by tricking people opposed to justice into support, by using a slogan that doesn’t offend them.

“Votes for women” didn’t get into how it would be administered or what women intended to do with the vote and I’m sure that a lot of people opposed to “votes for women” pretended to be very confused about all those matters.

And it was opposed. And very unpopular and impractical.

Police are fiscal vampires who take over half of a city’s municipal budget to occupy neighborhoods with military equip and deliver extralegal brutality, and we have ample proof of that now.

It’s an unjust problem that needs to be solved. Take their power and their money away.

It isn't about defending a slogan. It's about defending intent.

The reason you say "defund the police" is because it can't be confused as wanting to help police maintain their current level of power and funding. https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1334329551376306176?s=20

Now it's true that there are all sorts of other levels that sit behind that, from simply taking a large variety of burdens off their plate to a full rethink of policing.

But any solution needs to involve taking away their funding and their power, and there is power in saying so.

And it's not about elections, but change.

"Defund the police" wasn't a Dem party position. Few Dem pols ran on it. Most ran *against it*

It's something lots of their voters say, because it's want those people want.

In 2008 very few Dem pols ran on "love is love."

So it goes.

The police are an utterly failed institution, because what they exist to do is wage war against U.S. citizens, and we now have ample proof.

Some people very clearly *want* the police doing that.

We're going to have to win this battle without them. https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1287344323915329536?s=20

So yes I voted for the Democrats pragmatically, because they are more likely to get us closer to our goals. That's pragmatism.

Pragmatism is only one tool. Now I'm going to sure enough advocate clearly for unpopular solutions to obvious problems. That's activism. Another tool.

This is what people say who don't know how movements change minds. It's not by comforting the opposition.

Ah yes who could forget that non-controversial, universally beloved slogan that was never misunderstood, "black lives matter?"

Did BLM gain support through comfort?

But exciting personal news, I am now a Sandonista.

I am old enough to have heard a great many issues now that would never get broad support which now enjoy broad support.

This isn't about fiddling with the settings. This is about changing the whole atmosphere.

It's about demanding that this is one of the things on the table.

A slogan is a directional statement. It's a compass statement.

"We are here. We must go there."

It's the very first part of change.

Until you've agreed on movement, you don't move.

The navigation and the journey come after that.

Defund the police. https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1097119860834926592?s=20

Except this situation describes every movement for justice that succeeded ever.

"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they oppose you.
Then you win."

Remember that one?

You convince people of justice by demanding it. Justice has its own persuasive gravity.

"Votes for women" clearly meant to get rid of an unjust institutional construct—not to end voting, but to end injustice in voting.

"Defund the police" also clearly means to get rid of an unjust institutional construct—not to end civic peace, but that which harms civic peace.

A lot of people who think that "defund the police" is a terrible slogan because it doesn't persuade opposition sure seem to like to use slogans like "this is stupid." when they disagree with me.

It's almost like they lose their passion for persuading people they disagree with.

"Defund the police" sounds like anarchy only to people who look at rampant militarized police brutality and see not anarchy but safety.

But I will note this person has a clear passion for finding the correct words to persuade me, a person with whom they disagree.