this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
1746 points (99.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

7729 readers
3638 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ekremimaro@scribe.disroot.org 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To address this problem, we need to fundamentally revisit the idea of the social contract. Even the definition of crime today feels outdated almost archaic. If you look into your country’s penal code, you’ll likely find absurd and antiquated laws that have no place in a modern society.

The deeper issue is this: most legal systems are still grounded in Victorian moralism, Puritan ideals that glorify work and wealth, and a liberal ethical framework that collapses under its own contradictions. Trying to solve complex structural violence with these tools just makes things worse.

The problem isn’t just systemic it’s internal. As long as we defend our comfort zones like fragile sandcastles, thinking “as long as I’m safe and untouched” (aka “I've got mine, so screw the rest”), then we will continue to see public resources diverted—not toward justice or equality—but recycled back at us as institutional violence.

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 5 points 1 day ago

F.e. the current Dutch penal code was accept in 1881. Thats 144 years ago.

Part of the issue is that we are mostly stuck in an economic structure that cannot continue forever unless everybody partakes. Getting more wages every year, getting more revenue and profit every year, just doesn't work for eternity. In theory, if everybody got their 2%$ wage increases and interest was just 2% a year (excluding promotions or corrections for pas years etc) it would be fine.

The circular economy theory is one of those theories that attempts to fix that AND also work on helping the repair, reuse, recycle movement.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Can we be real? Police do not reduce crime.

Police punish criminals, or rather, they punish those that they think are criminals, since everyone is innocent until proven guilty (also the reason you shouldn't argue, fight with, nor run from cops.... They can charge you with crimes like evading arrest, even if the arrest is unlawful, resisting arrest, or assault on a "peace officer"... Justice does not come from police action, it comes from the actions of the court)...

Police usually show up, and/or take action after crimes have been committed, not before.

If you want effective crime prevention, there are plenty of good studies that prove what works, and putting more police on the streets, and giving them better and better arsenals is not on that list.

From social programs to "handouts" for healthcare and basics like food and shelter, among so many more proven tactics, can significantly reduce crime rates.

Giving the police money under the guise of reducing crime or being tough on crime is just political spin. What they're trying to do is funnel public dollars to their friends who make the equipment that the police use. Vests, weapons, radios, vehicles, you name it. More police means that police departments need more equipment to supply everyone.

These fuckers in government are serving themselves and their fat cat friends, not the public interest. The worst part is, that many believe their shit and think that it's for the public good to give the police more money.

That's the real problem here, ignorance. But again, that's what the fat cats want. The majority to be just stupid enough to believe whatever they're told and do no further investigation.... To have faith in liars, thieves and cheats.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 hour ago

What they're trying to do is funnel public dollars to their friends who make the equipment that the police use.

Don't forget funnelling a steady stream of prisoners into their corporate prison system...

Also criminalizing any political opponents...

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 4 points 1 day ago

In a normal state of things the police doesn't decide who is a criminal, the justice system does and that should be separated from the government. Sadly there are more and more corrupt countries these days. But yeah giving them more money for anything else than to get more/better personel doesn't help.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 326 points 2 days ago (16 children)

We've known for years that starting school at 08.00 is detrimental to school-aged children and teenagers, but we keep doing it.

We've known for years that WFH can be just as productive and even more so than RTO, but we keep doing it.

We've known for ages that housing homeless people helps them and society much better than criminalizing them, but we keep doing it.

We've known for ages that repressive stances on drugs are counterproductive, but we keep doing it.

We've known for ages that a 4-day workweek results in gains for everyone, including the owner class themselves, yet we keep on doing 5.

I'm starting to think that gaining knowledge and insight is completely useless if the results are never taken into account if they don't fit the currently reigning narrative.

Humans are a deeply flawed species. That alone is bad enough, but we KNOW we are, we KNOW how to solve at least some of it, yet we simply refuse.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 114 points 2 days ago (3 children)

All those points are always resisted by Conservatives / Regressives.... They are fucking wrong about every solution to every problem we face since the dawn of time.

[–] neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works 37 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Because by their nature and beliefs, they are resistant to change, any change, even good ones.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 50 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Not true. They are in favor of change that benefits the wealthy. They resist any change the benefits the general public.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 day ago

They're not for just any change that benefits the wealthy: they're against any mutually beneficial change.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world 50 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Have you considered that those things aren’t done not because of stupidity but because a small subset of society that holds most of the political power and media benefits from those things being done?

The system isn’t flawed in the sense that it doesn’t work. It does. Extremely well. It just doesn’t work for you and me or to make everyone’s lives better.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 37 points 2 days ago (2 children)

We've known for years that starting school at 08.00 is detrimental to school-aged children and teenagers, but we keep doing it.

Yeah, but we also know school is more about free childcare that allows both parents to go to work than it is about actual education.

We've known for years that WFH can be just as productive and even more so than RTO, but we keep doing it.

We also know that a large part of the real estate market is dependent on leasing office space.

We've known for ages that housing homeless people helps them and society much better than criminalizing them, but we keep doing it

Again, creating more homes drives down property value.

We've known for ages that repressive stances on drugs are counterproductive, but we keep doing it.

It also creates jobs for police officers, income for private prisons, and strips minorities of their rights.

We've known for ages that a 4-day workweek results in gains for everyone, including the owner class themselves, yet we keep on doing 5.

This is once again an issue with the real estate market. Cutting the work week also cuts into profits of companies dependent on demand made from people commuting to and from work.

starting to think that gaining knowledge and insight is completely useless if the results are never taken into account if they don't fit the currently reigning narrative.

It's not that we don't take account of the results, it's just that the results do not benefit the nonsensical economic system we've adapted to. Our system does not create value from the things we have, it creates value from the things we withold.

[–] Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Wow, I'm starting to think that maybe real estate shouldn't be a commodity subjected to market forces.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Our system does not create value from the things we have, it creates value from the things we withold.

Getting this stitched onto a throw pillow and plastered all over those "In This House We Believe" placards.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Enkrod@feddit.org 43 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

We've known for ages that paying for social services, healthcare and unemployment benefits increase the amount of spendable income the working class has and that this directly benefits the real economy while more income to top earners only means that that money is lost to the economy.

Most of the problems the US is facing could be fixed, or at least alleviated with social democratic programs. Better economy, better education, less crime, less partisanship, less drug abuse, less violence, less stress, less fear, better mental health, better physical health, less homelessness, more gender equality, more racial equality, more job security, better wages, better lifestyle, more happiness, less religion, etc. etc.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 23 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (17 children)

You have to cycle out old fucks to get progress.

After my generation dies you might be able to move forward in some of those fronts.

I will say, about the school times, that the biggest issue is the parent schedules, not the kids. Shifting times makes it much harder on parents, unless you also push tradwife-ish values: one parent must give up their career to care for the kids. It's a sticky topic without an easy solution.

Edit the responses about the school times illustrate my point. I'm not saying there's no solution; I'm saying there's no easy solution that isn't contentious.

[–] mjhelto@lemm.ee 22 points 2 days ago (2 children)

After my generation dies you might be able to move forward in some of those fronts.

Before this most recent US election, I had the same thought that the old fossils in power are the reasons nothing is getting better.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago (4 children)

As an outside observer it seems like American police culture is fundamentally rotten and it's not a funding issue.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

What's cool is they are exporting it. The cops where you are look up to the American style. When the American cops retire, they will be hired to train your cops with seminars and books. Its a fun little community. So you're an outsider, but not for long. Just a few more years of passively waiting and you will be an insider soon.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's almost like their highest priority isn't lowering crime.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Chaos, artificial scarcity, and violence feeds the system and justifies its existence.

Otherwise, why would we still have a mass incarceration system? Why is it still punitive in nature with terrible and inhumane conditions normalized?

A cycle is created that makes people unemployable and industries and those in power reap the benefits at every stage of these people's lives - any police contact is effectively a scarlet letter. Specifically, many corporations benefit from the slave labor sourced from prisons and the private prison industry is its own can of worms.

With AI tooling screening job applicants with proprietary criteria, public data brokers, mass surveillance disguised as "adtech", people search websites, social media (where people have a tendency to overshare personal details), systematic reporting of arrest records/etc. in newspapers (generally with no updates to reflect the person's current situation); you can literally be unemployable in the US with no conviction or crimes that have been expunged or sealed.

If you have a felony or misdemeanor on your record - good fucking luck getting a job in today's market - background checks are normalized and are extremely accessible to employers. It's no wonder why people turn to crime to exist, discrimination is effectively legalized - there is insufficient regulation and protections for job applicants.

The only way to prevent crime is to rehabilitate those who commit crime and to provide services to enrich people's lives before they would otherwise commit crime. We also need to respect people's privacy upon rehabilitation - we shouldn't be permanently labeling (or dehumanizing) those deemed to be fit to return to society (e.g. people that aren't violent or who aren't a threat). We have to give them a path to participate in society.

[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I'm not disagreeing with this necessarily, but I don't like seeing a post by an account I have no idea about stating something as scientific fact, and then having that post taken as fact point blank. Once again, not trying to say what she is saying is incorrect, I just get concerned when I see bandwagoning on some random person's take.

That said, if you find the studies on this, please please please do us all a favor and comment those!

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 38 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Here's a decent meta-analysis you can start with.

Sixteen reviews met the inclusion criteria. The reviews were comprised of nine peer-reviewed articles and reports from systematic review databases, five technical reports, and two working papers. Table 1 shows the reviews organized by objectives and geography

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 days ago

Well done and thank you.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There is a mountain of evidence and everything she says is common knowledge at this point to anyone who has spent even a few minutes looking it up. You can just use you favorite search engine to see for yourself.

You really just come off sounding aloof and uninformed. What evidence!? When you are swimming in a sea surrounded by it.

[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sorry I was too busy yelling at other people on other threads.

But also my concern was about the reaction to the post, not necessarily the post itself, though the two are connected

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Fair enough, I can see your concern.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 27 points 2 days ago (3 children)

California had a great mental health system in place. Ronald Reagan got elected and chose to close many of the in patient facilities. This lead to mass homelessness, which meant the police and prison budgets had to go up.

Then he did the same thing when he was President.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

California had a great mental health system in place.

I'm sorry, but no, we really fucking didn't. Reagan was wrong (about everything) to close them, but they weren't good before he did that by a looooong shot

[–] Jerb322@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Their excuse was rampant abuse, so instead of fixing it, they just closed them.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] FMT99@lemmy.world 77 points 2 days ago (10 children)

The downside to this approach, when you get right down to it, even if it works and improves standards of living all round. The real crux of the problem that the scientists always ignore is this: you'd have to allow some of your money to go to other people. That's a deal breaker for most folks with money.

[–] peto@lemm.ee 52 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It's worse than that. Some folks actually reject the idea that those poorer than them should have nice things, or even OK things. This is why there are voucher programs, why so much social housing (when it was built) are ugly, plain boxes showcasing the worst of brutalism.

[–] JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I feel like most rich people would reject 1000$ if that meant a poor person got 500$.

[–] msage@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago

During covid, they took $100ks while people got $500,

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world 41 points 2 days ago

Best I can do is militarized police

[–] FUBAR@lemm.ee 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

They’re not giving the police money. They’re giving the people who supply the police more money. Which are their people

More crime also means more slave labour and more equipment sales

doesn't protect private property though because that money might give poor people strength and power and we can't have the rubes having that now, can we? :(

[–] peto@lemm.ee 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

As always the real problem is laziness. Why create new systems when we can ad hoc the current system? Sure it was never meant to do that thing but our short term goals are way more important than any long term goal you can think of.

load more comments
view more: next ›