[a study paper is shown, with some of the text legible]
STUDY RESULTS
GIVING POOR PEOPLE MONEY REDUCES CRIME MORE THAN GIVING COPS THAT SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY
CONCLUSION
If you want to reduce crime, take care of your community's primary needs instead of funding cops so much

[an orange character in a suit has stamped a paper labeled MORE POLICE FUNDING BILL, and is grinning]
Heh, you think we don't know?

https://thebad.website/comic/scientific_policing

all 93 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 127 points 2 months ago (16 children)

Republicans are often seen to be better on crime. Not because crime goes down under republicans, but because they talk about cops and punishment more.

Easy sell: stop crime by going after criminals.

Harder sell: stop crime by preventing the things that make people criminals.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    People are pretty stupid and uncritically believe the myths about the republican party. Guy I worked with said "the republicans will unlock the economy" so he voted for trump. And then tariffs borked his business, and the war in iran probably killed some of his family. But he still jokes, as an iranian immigrant, about ICE abductions. Some people are just stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 months ago

    That's exactly it.

    The GOP cornered the moronic "Law & Order" narrative because they're fascists who want a police state.

    Establishment Dems also want a police state but know their voterbase doesn't. So they try to sell a police state, under different words, and still refuse to talk about any actually meaningful alternatives. Its why cunts like Hakeem Jefferies refuse to fight to abolish ICE even though abolishing ICE polls better than "reforming" it.

    Only DSA candidates are pushing real solutions. That's why establishment Dems are fighting them harder in 1 year than they've fought Trump in 10 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago

    Same with conservatives in Europe – and it's also the same with government efficiency. They get "issue ownership" because they talk about it a lot, but I've never heard of conservative politicians who've actually made government more efficient.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    It's a harder sell, but it's impacted by media straight up not talking about policy that way. Investigative journalism in America (and probably the broader West) is essentially dead, so the public becomes wildly uninformed and has to go off vibes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Americans are not a mature people. They find it scarier to be without a gun than to be without a doctor.

    Their mentality on crime is that they wanna punish bad guys. They don't care about justice, they just wanna "fight bad guys" like in an action movie. We can see this in how they obsess over Lindsay Clancy. They don't care that she has psychosis and would be better served in a mental institution, they saw that she did something bad and they wanna see her punished.

    The reasons for her actions are not important, the fact that there's a better solution is not important, the fact that Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity doesn't mean she gets to go home is not important.

    She's a bad guy, and bad guys get punished.

    Americans favor punishment over rehabilitation not because rehabilitation doesn't work (Other countries that focus on it show that it definitely does), but because they are immature and care more about "Fighting bad guys" than actual justice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago*

    I will be the greatest president. Using my superior prescient abilities I will stop the events that produce criminals to begin with. The entire country will be crime free at the end of my term. With the strength of a tactician's mind America will be the greatest country in the world

    mouth breathers cheering as the end of Shall Never Surrender from DMC4 plays over loudspeskers

    Everyone is 12 in America dude just sound like a confident supervillain and your are good.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    This definitely used to be true, but now that they're okay with the leader of their party using the FBI to cover up his own child sex abuse scandal, any Republican who asserts that they're tough on crime is going to lose that debate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 48 points 2 months ago (20 children)

    You mistakenly think that the purpose is to reduce crime and improve people's lives.

    People in power (and unfortunately most people not in power also) think that there is a "fair" order to things. Those deserving will be successful, and the undeserving will not (and should not and must not) get anything. The strength of the power of the police+law is to protect the deserving from the undeserving. Not to make a fair or just or happy society. There are many who would happily lobby to refuse all emergency services, rights, legal protections, healthcare, etc to those who are "undeserving".

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    That's the heart of conservatism: hierarchy

    There are many who would happily lobby to refuse all emergency services, rights, legal protections, healthcare, etc to those who are β€œundeserving”.

    I go on about this a lot, but the book "Dying of Whiteness" has examples of that. One guy literally was dying but still didn't want those people to have free health care, even if it would save his life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    You say that as though Liberalism didn't immediately start with hierarchy. Liberalism literally said that power should be in the hands of the wealthy, not the hands of the hereditary aristocracy. Liberalism emerged precisely because merchants got super wealthy and then found that no matter how much money they had, the king decided if they got land. So Liberalism emerged as something to replace the hierarchy of the nobility with, specifically the hierarchy of wealth. All the "universal" equality shit of liberalism was invented to get the poor peasantry to agree. There was never a single day of liberalism anywhere on planet earth that saw an absence of hierarchy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I think you were schooling me a few weeks ago on this subject, and I never responded. If that was you, thank you for your infomative response.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Possibly, I often try to bring the history of Liberalism and Conservatism into view when people clearly just mean "good" and "evil" but borrow terms from political philosophy without examining them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (11 children)

    Bit of a waffles and pancakes response, or maybe squares and rectangles.

    I am inclined to agree with you, but don't see what you're saying as a contradiction of what I said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    Conservatism emerged as a response to Liberalism. Hierarchy is at the heart of the society that creates both of them, neither of them are about hierarchy. The heart of conservatism is the preservation of a status quo that itself is maintained entirely through systems that produce stability. The heart of liberalism is the preservation of a status quo through mercantile dynamism, where one person may be at the top of heap one day and fall to the bottom the next without necessarily resorting to violence.

    I think it is inaccurate at best, and deliberately misleading at worst, to say hierarchy is the heart of conservatism. History isn't a vibe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Conservatism is built on support for monarchy, the most hierarchy of hierarchy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    No. Conservatism is a reaction to Liberalism. Liberalism is a hierachical system with different mechanisms than monarchy. Conservatism was not reacting to the hierachical aspect of Liberalism but to the stability aspect. Because it was a reaction to Liberalism, it didn't need to defend hierarchy, it only needed to defend the systems of power distribution that Liberalism was attacking.

    You're doing vibes and it isn't working.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

    My vibes align with Wikipedia, at least

    Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology that seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values.[1][2][3] The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears.[4] In Western culture, depending on the particular nation and the particular time period, conservatives seek to promote and preserve a range of institutions, such as the nuclear family, organized religion, the military, the nation-state, constitution, property rights, rule of law, aristocracy, and monarchy.[5][6]

    I don't know if I've heard it described as a reaction to liberalism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

    So when I accuse you of vibes-based reasoning, what I mean is deriving your understanding from the opening paragraph of wikipedia, or equivalently from dictionaries, and having no knowledge of conservatism being a reaction to enlightment philosophy (specifically liberalism). You clearly haven't done the bare minimum of work to understand conservativism, so what makes you so confident that hierarchy is the heart of conservativism? If you read even a little bit you'll be confronted with various other potential hearts like wisdom, community, history, social cohesion, stability, and tradition. Stop trying to defend your unexamined position, take the critique, and do some reading. It's a very rich history with lots of challenging ideas and tons of wonderful debates that help us understand where we are today and lay the foundation for how to move forward.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    A dictionary is a fine place to find the definition of something. An encyclopedia is a reasonable resource for a high level view. Wikipedia specifically is open for edits. You are empowered to change the article, if you believe it is mistaken.

    Do you have some books you would recommend?

    Do you identify as a conservative?

    If you read even a little bit you’ll be confronted with various other potential hearts like wisdom, community, history, social cohesion, stability, and tradition.

    Some of these are nicer ways of saying "hierarchy"

    It’s a very rich history with lots of challenging ideas and tons of wonderful debates that help us understand where we are today and lay the foundation for how to move forward.

    I find this hard to believe given the conservative party in the US, the republicans, have atrocious positions on every policy. It is a party of white supremacy (hierarchy) and the rule of capital (also hierarchy).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    American conservatives are Liberals.

    Just read John Locke and Edmund Burke. They're good starting points. Note how on the one hand you think Conservatism is about protecting the monarchy and on the other hand you think American Republicans are conservatives despite their focus on private property, profits, corporate profits, and tax loopholes for the rich. You can't hold both of these views if you actually engage with the ideas.

    Free market capitalism is Liberalism. Social welfare was originally Conservativism. Progressive Liberalism adopted social welfare after a century of the brutality and abject poverty of Liberalism and it was adopted insofar as it lessened the chance of a popular revolution.

    No, I do not identify as Conservative. I don't think we should defend traditional European monarchies and the system of nobility. But neither do I identify as a Liberal. I do not think private property should be the source of power and authority, I do not think democracy should be limited to managing the affairs of the various factions of oligarchs and how best to repress the masses. I identify as a Communist - I believe in the abolition of private property, in decolonization and anti-imperialism, in active repression of reactionary forces, and the subsequent century or more of conscious, deliberate adaptation and planning that will be required to reshape human society as it purges itself of the last 600 years of EuroCentric hegemony and eventually creates the conditions for humanity to process its collective traumas and hopefully come out the other side into a sustainable community that can work together for several thousand years to reintegrate with the ecosystem and once again become healthy participants in the web of life

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    American conservatives are Liberals.

    This is one of those things that's technically correct but in colloquial conversation causes much confusion. No street level republican will cause themselves a liberal. They think liberal means left-wing. Socialist. Communism. Abolition of the old systems and ushering in a new one without states, castes, or private property to stratify people into their different levels. Hierarchy, if you will.

    Are there any major players in US politics you would identify as conservative? The democratic party is also primarily concerned with private property and markets, with some lip service paid to civil rights and labor. It's less anti-science and anti-intellectual, at least.

    Note how on the one hand you think Conservatism is about protecting the monarchy and on the other hand you think American Republicans are conservatives despite their focus on private property, profits, corporate profits, and tax loopholes for the rich. You can’t hold both of these views if you actually engage with the ideas.

    These ideas are not contradictory if you accept my thesis that the underlying concept is the preservation of hierarchy. The details are less important. The idea is that there are some people who are on top, who rule, who have different rules applied to them. A republican senator can take a month of paid sick leave, because he's Important, but a regular laborer cannot do such a thing. Sometimes it's nobility. Sometimes it's just the capitalist ownership class. But there's also the lower levels, that are similar in a way. That's where you get whites dominant over everyone else. Men above women.

    I identify as a Communist - I believe in the abolition of private property, in decolonization and anti-imperialism, in active repression of reactionary forces, and the subsequent century or more of conscious, deliberate adaptation and planning that will be required to reshape human society as it purges itself of the last 600 years of EuroCentric hegemony and eventually creates the conditions for humanity to process its collective traumas and hopefully come out the other side into a sustainable community that can work together for several thousand years to reintegrate with the ecosystem and once again become healthy participants in the web of life

    So we actually agree on all of that, perhaps barring some minutia and details.

    Just read John Locke and Edmund Burke. They’re good starting points.

    I'll submit this suggestion to my book club. (No, I'm serious. We just read Zinn's people's history. Don't laugh.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    This is one of those things that’s technically correct but in colloquial conversation causes much confusion

    No. The confusion is already there. The American population has been thoroughly confused. Using correct terminology is ILLUMINATING, and yes, it illuminates the confusion, and thus presents a chance to end the confusion. The American politicians LOVE the idea of two factions of liberalism controlling the entire discourse because then nothing makes any sense except the minor variations on liberalism that they manage.

    They think liberal means left-wing. Socialist. Communism

    They don't. They're not idiots. They're playing the population for fools. They know that they're fans of Adam Smith and John Locke, and they know that both of them were Liberal. They hire staffers from Harvard. Most of them are lawyers who studied this stuff. They know what they're doing. They're pandering and confusing. Deliberately. Because it gives them the power to manipulate.

    Are there any major players in US politics you would identify as conservative?

    Maybe Thiel and Yarvin who might actually think returning to monarchy is a good idea. But no. 99.9% of American Conservatives are Liberals and 99.9% of American Liberals are Liberals. It's a Liberal country founded on Liberal ideals by Liberals. It is the quintessential Liberal experiment.

    The democratic party is also primarily concerned with private property and markets, with some lip service paid to civil rights and labor.

    Correct. Because they're Liberals.

    These ideas are not contradictory if you accept my thesis that the underlying concept is the preservation of hierarchy.

    Which no one who studies the field accepts.

    The idea is that there are some people who are on top, who rule, who have different rules applied to them

    That's identical in Liberalism. Note how the Liberal founders of the USA, steeped in Liberal thought, made sure that the Senate was a body to protect landlord (or as James Madison put it, the opulent minority), how they made sure that slaves were private property and that slave OWNERS got more votes than merely people rich people who didn't own slaves, how women did not get to vote, how the states selected their senators and not the people, how they created an electoral college, how they made sure that polities were large enough to require large amounts of money and freedom to get elected into office. Liberalism was ALWAYS about protections for the rich and not for the poor. Always.

    A republican senator can take a month of paid sick leave, because he’s Important, but a regular laborer cannot do such a thing. Sometimes it’s nobility. Sometimes it’s just the capitalist ownership class. But there’s also the lower levels, that are similar in a way. That’s where you get whites dominant over everyone else. Men above women.

    Note. That's Liberalism, my friend. Racism gets codified around the time maritime mercantilism is getting incubated. By the time Liberalism becomes a philosophy, it's fully invested in racial hierarchy. When the Liberal revolution happens in the US, the founding medical universities were all pumping out race "science" to justify slavery. That's ALL Liberalism. Kings didn't make people racist. Merchants did, because they needed to prove to courts of law that throwing slaves overboard wasn't murder, it was property destruction and thus covered under insurance claims. Because that's how Liberalism works.

    White supremacy is not a Conservative concept. Patriarchy is not a Conservative concept. Were there Liberals who wanted to abolish these things? Yes. Is it because they were Liberals? No.

    The confusion comes from the propaganda of Liberalism as a defender of "universal rights", when what it really did was invent the concept of abstract "rights" as way of fighting the "injustices" of monarchy, when those injustices were specifically "I can't buy land because I'm not nobility". The only reason they were expanded to include things peasants cared about was to get the peasant to fight on the side of Liberals. But the Liberal philosophy drove the absolute height of chattel slavery in the West, complete with it's utter brutality and it's Christian nationalist mythos.

    I’ll submit this suggestion to my book club. (No, I’m serious. We just read Zinn’s people’s history. Don’t laugh.)

    Zinn is great, but it should absolutely make everyone pause and go "wait a minute, we don't actually know what we're talking about" and then reading Locke and Burke become salient. And then when you read them, I swear you'll see things in Locke that you'll realize are totally batshit, like the idea that if a virgin forest is inhabited by indigenous humans who forage for food, they don't own it, but if I personally chop down a tree, sell it for money, then hire 2 people to chop down more trees, sell them, and then pay an army to chop down all the trees, now I and I alone own all of that land and it's within my right to kill anyone who would trespass that land AND ALSO the purpose of government is to provide a police force that will kill people for me because I couldn't POSSIBLY ever personally defend all of the land that I would be able to own....

    And then you'll read Burke and realize, holy shit these Conservatives literally had a social welfare perspective that the nobility was required to provide for the common people, and then you'll really understand the People's History because after nearly every Liberal revolution in Europe there was like a full century of just fucking economic devastation where the merchants took all of the wealth and the laborers lived like cockroaches (and died like cockroaches) and the Liberals were like "work harder, and smarter, and maybe you'll earn a life one day" and that shit went on for so long it literally created Marxism and the Liberals were suddenly fighting against organized labor and they saw the revolution in Russia and were like "holy shit we're gonna die" so they reinvented social welfare to protect themselves.

    I know it's confusing to Americans. But that confusion is not my fault, and we have to work through the confusion for people to finally understand what the fuck has been happening all these years. It's two factions of Liberalism, primarily separated by the particular psycho-social profiles they resonate with the most, and they collaborate to maintain the Liberal power structure against liberatory movements that would unseat them from power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Would this entire conversation (and I appreciate you taking the time without being too prickly) gone a clearer route if my initial post had been something like "The dominant political ideology of the US, which I want to call conservatism because that's what the US republican party calls it, but is arguably liberalism (and not the propagandized "freedom and prosperity for all" version), is built upon hierarchy. The capitalist class lives by a different set of rules, and sometimes bestow a lesser form of that to others- eg: white supremacy, patriarchy. People are not equal, in this view."

    Or maybe it would have slammed into this:

    These ideas are not contradictory if you accept my thesis that the underlying concept is the preservation of hierarchy.

    Which no one who studies the field accepts.

    Well I guess I'll have to go get my PhD then! Heh.

    But, to review, what I was responding to was this

    People in power (and unfortunately most people not in power also) think that there is a β€œfair” order to things. Those deserving will be successful, and the undeserving will not (and should not and must not) get anything.

    And I think that idea of a "fair" order, with some on top, some under them, and a lot on the bottom is endemic in... what I would have called conservative thought but after all this I guess I'd now call liberal. Or maybe "right wing" is a parent category?

    They think liberal means left-wing. Socialist. Communism

    They don’t. They’re not idiots. They’re playing the population for fools. They know that they’re fans of Adam Smith and John Locke, and they know that both of them were Liberal. They hire staffers from Harvard. Most of them are lawyers who studied this stuff. They know what they’re doing. They’re pandering and confusing. Deliberately. Because it gives them the power to manipulate.

    Point of order. The "they" in my sentence was referring to what I called street level republicans. Guys with maga hats who don't read non-fiction and certainly don't know who John Locke was. Not the people running the show. The capitalist class and high ranking officials may be more in line with your description there.

    The only reason they were expanded to include things peasants cared about was to get the peasant to fight on the side of Liberals

    A recurring theme highlighted in people's history.

    I swear you’ll see things in Locke that you’ll realize are totally batshit, like the idea that if a virgin forest is inhabited by indigenous humans who forage for food, they don’t own it, but if I personally chop down a tree, sell it for money, then hire 2 people to chop down more trees, sell them, and then pay an army to chop down all the trees, now I and I alone own all of that land and it’s within my right to kill anyone who would trespass that land AND ALSO the purpose of government is to provide a police force that will kill people for me because I couldn’t POSSIBLY ever personally defend all of the land that I would be able to own…

    Yes, that does sound batshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    The dominant political ideology of the US , which I want to call conservatism because that’s what the US republican party calls it, but is arguably liberalism (and not the propagandized β€œfreedom and prosperity for all” version), is built upon hierarchy. The capitalist class lives by a different set of rules, and sometimes bestow a lesser form of that to others- eg: white supremacy, patriarchy. People are not equal, in this view.

    If you had led with this, without naming it, and without assigning it to a party, this would be completely accurate. I get prickly when people use these words to make it seem like the Democrats are an alternative to this ideology, because they are not. They are a faction within the same ideology.

    Well I guess I’ll have to go get my PhD then! Heh.

    I know it feels like that, but it's not so bad as that. I don't have my PhD in this stuff, and there's plenty more for me to learn, but I did spend most of my undergrad majoring in philosophy so I have a little bit more of a leg up than people on this sort of reading than some others do. But it's relatively accessible, and there are plenty of websites that help to explain a lot of this in easy to consume terms. Hell, an a.i. chatbot today will give you a decent primer if you just ask "is American conservativism actually a form of philosophical Liberalism? How did that happen?".

    And I think that idea of a β€œfair” order, with some on top, some under them, and a lot on the bottom is endemic in… what I would have called conservative thought but after all this I guess I’d now call liberal. Or maybe β€œright wing” is a parent category?

    Yeah, it's tough. I think what you're pointing at is something I don't think I've ever seen a useful word for. It could be "elitist". Liberalism and Conservatism are both "elitist" ideologies, they just differ on the details of the elite. Using "right wing" and "left wing" gets all sorts of muddled, because during the period of Liberal revolution, Liberals were Left Wing and Monarchists were Right Wing. But now there are very few Monarchists and it's not much of a real position in most places in the world, though it does exist in some places. Without Monarchists, Communists are now Left Wing and Liberals are now Right Wing. In those places with all three, one might assume we could say Liberals are "centrists" but the reality is that they will always side with Monarchists against Communists because Communism is ideologically anti-elite (even if people want to argue that in practice an elite does emerge).

    In short, adding in "wings" can be more confusing in some contexts. But also there's no real language for lumping the commonality between Liberalism and Conservatism in the way that you and I both see exists.

    The β€œthey” in my sentence was referring to what I called street level republicans

    Oh gotcha. Yeah. Must people who don't dig deep and learn about this stuff are thoroughly immersed in deliberately confusing propaganda and mostly align with symbols as they are used within their insulated social networks. This is true regardless of affiliation.

    Yes, that [Lockean Private Property] does sound batshit.

    Yeah, private property is a sacred cow and the primary lever for red scare propaganda ("they'll take your toothbrush!") but when you really analyze it it's just the ability for a single human being to deprive all other living 8B people today, and all of their descendants, for ALL TIME from ever using a particular piece of the earth purely on the basis that I "applied labor to make the land 'productive'", but also I didn't need to do the labor myself I could have paid someone to do it, or I could have bought slaves and made them do it, and that grants me inalienable rights to deprive all of humanity present and future from the fruits of the earth? Any contemporary human given an honest reading of Locke would be absolutely revolted by it, but, of course, it sounded fucking great to people like Thomas Jefferson who just wanted to breed slaves and sell them to farmers so they could grow cotton and tobacco on land that they stole from the natives they massacred.

    Sorry.

    I just don't want the people who are resisting to resist "conservatives" exclusively. It's not enough. It's a Punch and Judy show. It's Good Cop/Bad Cop. If we only get angry and resist conservatives, we're inevitably going to get led about by the nose from the "liberals" who promise they'll make it all better, when fundamentally their goal is to direct and diffuse our anger so we don't destroy their genocidal gravy train.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    If you're born into money, you have two options:

    Either you believe you don't truly deserve all this money, and you live with the existential angst and dread this causes you until you slowly kill yourself through drugs and alcohol, or you give it all away and live as a poor nomad.

    OR you believe you truly deserve all that money. And since you know you didn't actually DO anything to get it, it must be because you were BORN better than everyone else. Genetically superior.

    Which do you think most people choose?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    And if you're not born into money it's:

    1. You can be rich if you just apply yourself.

    or

    1. You are trapped in a system that will keep you in poverty your entire life no matter what you do.

    Which message would you choose?

    Edit. And if you grew up rich and wanted to protect the system that put you in charge of a media company, which message would you choose to propagate?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Voters think that though. Waking them up from the illusion may help.

    Plus, honestly, most people drink their own kool aid so I wouldn't be surprised if our leaders did believe this despite all evidence. The desire to think of yourself as a good person can overpower most evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    And it's profitable in 'Murica

    Private prisons should not exist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Private prisons should not exist

    FIFY

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

    Ohhhhhh, just fuck off with that mawkish bullshit

    Nobody likes prisons

    They should not be a place of punishment, but of rehabilitation

    But your soap-dodging horse-shit goes beyond naivety, firmly into the swamp of stupidity

    This kind of idiocy is the sort of shit that RWNJs seize upon to try to discredit the efforts of us who actually want to make the world a better place

    Grow the fuck up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Oh fuck off with your naive and uneducated take on the abolition of police and the carceral justice system.

    Educate yourself on the anarchist perspective and do some growing up yourself first.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Anarchy doesn't work because humans suck. Telling someone to grow up when you have such a hugely childish perspective is hilarious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Cool story. Fuck that misanthropic, uneducated take.

    It isn't childish to have an understanding that humanity is more than it's behavior under capitalism

    Go study history and anthropology and lose that shitty, self-defeating mentality

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Hi

    I studied political and economic anthropology at university

    I eagerly await you telling me that I must have studied it wrong

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    They're trying to build a prison,

    They're trying to build a prison,

    They're trying to build a prison,

    FOR YOU AND ME TO LIVE IN

    Another Prison System,

    Another Prison System,

    Another Prison System

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    Also worth remembering that Crime in the US is at a near low overall. Violent crime is at a historic low, while non-violent crime is also low with the exception of retail theft. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/violent-crime-falls-at-historic-rate-new-fbi-data-show

    So less money for Police, more for Mental health professionals, as that is a huge percentage of their callouts. But why would politicians want to keep people off the streets by a universal income, and gainfully employed and healthy... oh wait bureaucratic inertia and campaign finance corruption... 🀦

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Two separate thoughts:

    I think people interested in policing should read:

    • Angela Davis: Are Prisons Obsolete ( pdf | audiobook )

    • the prison industrial complex exists to protect capital not to protect people.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Thanks Mamdani

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    So the point missed is that the goal is prison labor. Why pay someone to process toll booths on a computer for a few dollars a day while having the taxpayer cover their expense and pay for the prison?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    No that's just a part of it. Another huge part is having a large militarized and brutal police force that you can use to against the people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    They are creating an underclass. They want people to struggle, they actively create situations for you to fail, so they can have an excuse to put you in a lower position. Wealthy people very much have a zero-sum mindset. The lower you can sink, the higher they are relative to you.

    But to do this, they need to justify it somehow. They create cruel "tests" to decide if you will be a serf or slave. So yes, they even make tiers between the "lesser" people.

    But that is only a small part of what the powers that be do here, there's multiple layers to this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    GOP/DNC both support the status quo that police unions(not true unions0 should be funded, it keeps thier interests in line.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Not just money though. You need to also have social support programs.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago*

    Ah, life on the outside ain't what it used to be Y'know, the world's gone crazy, and it ain't safe on the street Ah, well it's a drag, I know, there's only one place to go-oh Baby, back where I come from, I'm comin' home

    (Lyrics from superjail theme song, "coming home" - by cheeseburger)

  • source
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (20 children)

    Is it true thouh?

    Because in my country we have quite strong social support. And whole communities of minorities stopped working because of that. And they often fill their free time with offence (speeding, fights, gun offence...) and crime (like selling guns, drugs...) for extra money. In past two years we stopped this and now condition social support with behaving.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    and crime (like selling guns, drugs...) for extra money.

    I hope you can see the contradiction here. You just said they don't work and now say that they do illegal work. That should be your first clue that something about your information is wrong, because obviously these two things can't be true at the same time.

    More broadly, the idea that "whole communities of minorities stopped working" because of social welfare is, frankly, bullshit. And not just that, it's the kind of bullshit that gets repeated everywhere (see: welfare queen rhetoric in America), because its purpose is to rile up working class people of the majority ethnicity against minorities. The fact of the matter is: People like having financial security and nice things, so the vast majority of people aren't going to stop working because they're getting the pittance of money that counts for social welfare in even really generous countries. When people don't work, that's almost always because they can't work (see asylum seekers for another example), so whoever is telling you that dirty gypsies are lazily living off your tax money is feeding you bullshit. When it comes to Romas specifically, Romas have been shut out of polite society for centuries now, and it'd be ridiculous to assume that it stopped overnight. But we don't have to assume; we know it hasn't. It's no coincidence that countries without intense and longstanding anti-Roma hatred also don't have stereotypes about dirty Gypsies living off your tax money.

    In past two years we stopped this and now condition social support with behaving.

    So is there evidence that Roma crime is in any way correlated with social welfare or are you accepting that this "solution" worked based on vibes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    almost always because theyΒ can'tΒ work

    I think you should research a topic in Slovenia specifically more deeply. We had two very very specific reasons why this is different for Slovenia:

    • If you have a few kids social support in slovenia is comparable to minimal wage. In disadvantaged communities it becomes a real option, because they are not educated and with so many kids, families often live on a single minimal income. Would you work if you would get the same money if you did not?
    • Slovenian law did not allow for government to tske anything frlm people in social support. And they did not have pay fines. And with our prisons full, lots of crime was reduced to fines. So criminals in those communities were never punished.

    illegal work

    Legal work would take their social security away. And they would have to work full time for no extra money. Would you?

    In many countries, behind this kind of argument is a racist motivation. But in some cases this kind of assuming bad intent actually keeps disadvantaged communities isolated, poor and hostage to crime.

    I thought lemmy was a place of an actuall debate. And now I see how easy you all assume bad motivation... And allow yourself to put words like "dirty Gypsie" in my mounth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    I think you should research a topic in Slovenia specifically more deeply.

    No, you should back up your assertions with data. Assuming what you're saying is true, though, let's try this:

    If you have a few kids social support in slovenia is comparable to minimal wage. [...] Would you work if you would get the same money if you did not?

    Then the question becomes: Why is the money they'd get if they worked minimum wage? That's your problem right there.

    And with our prisons full, lots of crime was reduced to fines. So criminals in those communities were never punished.

    Yeah that sounds like a problem. Nothing to do with social welfare though.

    And allow yourself to put words like "dirty Gypsie" in my mounth.

    I didn't put them in your mouth; I put them in the mouth of wherever you're getting your information. You seem to be well-meaning, but the stereotypes you're parroting (which, again, show up everywhere, so this isn't something unique about Slovenia) do come from the kind of people who would be mad at dirty Gypsies for stealing their tax money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Those are very related problems. We should also solve those problems. I agree. But they do not exist in vacuum.

    We are all in favor of higher minimum wage. But in our country we screwed up. We increased social support way too much compared to minimal wage. Those two number should be balanced do not you agree? You can do it in two ways the other is to increase minimal wage. And minimal wage in Slovenia is very close to average wage.

    I am not saying we should remove social support and become USA.

    Slovenia is 2nd or 1st (depends on a year) in Gini index so we have the smallest inequality in the whole world. Do not you think issues you most commonly see imported from USA (with huge inequality) are different in country like that? If we created some imbalances that incentivised isolated communities to turn to crime, are we not allowed to fix those imbalances? Or will we be called racists in doing that?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Conclusion: Lobotomize all civilians and put them to work, to protect them from the evils of personal time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    This is your conclusion... My conclusion is to stop giving as much social support to people who abuse the mechanism.

    Maybe one thing that was not clear: If you were poor enough, government was not allowed to take your social support. Which means people were commiting offences and were not punished for them like the rest of us. They did not have to pay. Our jails are full and I hope you also do not want to put people in jail for minor offences.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Sounds like a thought crime. Off to the pony miniaturization factory with you!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    He's talking about Roma people

    It's racism, but OP doesn't see it as such, because Roma people are apparently less human than other humans

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Well hello FistingEnthusiast! I'm not sure you responded to the right thread.

    I made a sarcastic comment that he took literally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Oh, I got your point

    I was explaining how OP's racism is apparently different, because the people concerned are Roma

    The Roma have faced systematic discrimination for centuries, and they were among the groups Hitler was very enthusiastic about wiping out

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Damn, you're kinda shitty

    Tell us that you enjoy a position of privilege and don't understand that others aren't as fortunate without telling us that you enjoy a position of privilege and don't understand that others aren't as fortunate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Jusy because I want to know if this commic is backed by actual research?

    We really have strong social support. People in my country can live just on social support. People are still poor, but can survive.

    Maybe that is not the case in your country... But in Slovenia it became a real issue no social program was able to solve. I still support our social support programs. However conditioning a part of social support with paying for your offence penalties turned out to be a success...

    While majority still does not want to do that, some individuals and some whole communities where this is normalized decide to stop working and live poor life with no stress of work.

    It did not help them, they are a minority. However same minority successfully integrated in other parts of our (small) country so it is not a minority issue. 30 years of really trying to integrate them did not work because unconditional social support allowed them to isolate even further and crime gave them an extra buck so they could afford some luxury.

    Do you have a better solution for that issue?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    You're talking about Roma people

    People who are consistently discriminated against and displaced

    It's racism

    What you're talking about (and evidently endorsing) is racism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • No, racism was politics that kept them in their poor situation.

    If you support a policy that seems good on surface but keeps people in perpetual poverty you should check on a racist in a mirror.

    Violent people that could not be punished did hold whole roma community isolated and poor. I think that allowing such state is racism and it is discusting that one might support that. And all that while thinking you are helping a community.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Sounds like you let the wrong "minorities" in, mate..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    They (roma) are native in my country. With as much right to this place as me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    And yet, you seem to see them as less deserving

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • No, they deserve help. They need it. All poor people deserve help. But Slovenian law allowed criminals among then them to actually never be punished. Criminas are in all communities. But criminals on social support actually could not be punished. This patteren was the most obvious in Roma community.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago

    Him face is an octogon

  • source
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago

    Ugh, this reeks of firstworlder.

  • source
  • [+] -13 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Is this meant to be funny, or is it meant to be a commentary on actual reality? As far as I'm aware, studies strongly support the idea that policing is more effective per dollar at reducing crime than any attempt so far to reduce crime with welfare.

    I searched a bit to see if there was a new paper this comic was based on, and didn't find one.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments