> Do you think the majority of the people who say defund the police believe that?

You made the following claim:

>> This isn't what defund the police was about at all and is just a strawman to stop inquisitions into the actual point of the defund the police movement.

I was merely providing an example, published in a paper of record in the U.S., that claims to speak for a "we", to show that indeed the spokespeople for the movement are unambiguous in what "defund" means. The article says "we mean" not "I mean".

> Just because a minority of people have a terrible opinion doesn't mean the entire movement does.

Certainly, intransigent minorities tend to drive movements and protests. https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

Meanwhile the "larpers" attend protests and change profile pictures and "stand with" and chant slogans. That's the luxury belief part.

WW2 Germany was probably similar in the sense that the majority were silent while the radicals were outspoken?

Nonetheless, be careful when you defend a radical movement by asserting that, well actually, they meant a more moderate position:

"[T]he motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you retreat to an obvious, uncontroversial statement, and say that was what you meant all along, so you’re clearly right and they’re silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement." https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...