this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
1011 points (95.7% liked)

solarpunk memes

3733 readers
192 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sga@lemmings.world 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (7 children)

Don't take what i say in the wrong way but what is listed does not really work any better than police. And before i go further, I also live in a place where police is lazy corrupt and racist to some extent, but first 2 are also a result of the fact they are not paid well.

  • Teach everyone self defence - that is good in principle, but it is double edged sword - you are also possible training a future criminal, and it would most likely still be a net benefit

  • organise your local communities and do community patrols (I don't remember much about how it is done in wakanda, only saw the first movie and also a long time ago) - there are 2 possible ways - either we cycle through the population - then the quality of patrol would "vary" to put it gently, if we make a small subset of people who are nominated for the job - then you have made police again - they can still get corrupt

  • Handle conflict mediation without a racist incarceration system that doesn't work? - it is spoken in a self fulfulling prophecy way - it assumes (1) conflict mediation is always possible and (2) and you do not want a system which is racist. (2) is fine, but (1) is not easy. We do not a systematic framework (constitution) and people who understand it well. Not everyone can be put in burden of understanding the law (everyone should have basic understanding, but most people already do, but most real world crime is not that easy)

What is written, mostly works for a small community (of the size of a village (< 1000)). This may also justify living in smaller self sufficient communities, but this is not efficient (in sense of resource usage) - too many people would be constantly reinventing wheels. Also, the "quality" (read threat level) of criminal would vary from village to village, and if a criminal goes on village hopping rampage, these disconencted villages would be at a disdvantage, they can act like fediverse network - share the "post" with federating "communities" but if they are not federating with a community (either intentionally, or they have never come across yet) then the "post" would go unnoticed.

[–] swab148@lemm.ee 3 points 4 days ago
[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 days ago

it assumes (1) conflict mediation is always possible and (2) and you do not want a system which is racist. (2) is fine, but (1) is not easy

1 is actually not as hard as people make it out to be, people just think 'mediation' and 'giving orders' are the same thing. I did care for developmentally disabled adults, and part of my training was in conflict mediation. I've also worked in a low-cost hotel that housed drug dealers, and preferred to de-escalate conflicts between tweakers myself instead of calling the cops. One of the huge problems with the US police forces is that they generally assume conflict mediation isn't going to work and jump straight to guns.

I also don't understand why it's not a political talking point that happy people don't commit crime to begin with. The US is allergic to taxes being used to increase happiness. Benefits keep getting shot down like, oh no, we can't have aid because people won't use it to better themselves, they're just going to stop stealing booze and start paying for it. Even their supposed downside is an actual improvement, I don't get it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Keep me honest, isn't the gangsta group called Crypts came from this?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 3 points 4 days ago

We NEED Cops! Without them WHO would we call AFTER a Crime has Happened? WHERE would we Invest those BILLIONS of Dollars we Would Save? We NEED COPS!

[–] VisionScout@lemmy.wtf 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Who needs cops anyway?

CHOP/CHAZ

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

Everybody just getting along and cooperating and not fucking with each other sounds dope too. So go ahead, make that happen and we won't need cops. While you're at it, lack of fires and accidental injuries would be super dope too. Got an ETA on those?

If that makes me sound like a hardline law-and-order type, guess again meme-brain, I'm just intelligent enough to know that seriously thinking we don't need cops is idiotic.

[–] easily3667@lemmus.org 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Do you have evidence? A controlled study?

Also firefighters may be racist magas, but they provide a universal good with no downsides. I've never personally witnessed three firefighters gang up on a homeless person chilling on the sidewalk, for example. Very unaware of any firefighters trying to charge you a fee for not knowing your tail light was out.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

A controlled study that proves crimes happen? LOL nope you got me there.

[–] easily3667@lemmus.org 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

No, a controlled study where for example a small town decided to eliminate a majority of policing. No patrols, no presence except for 911 response, etc. crimes would still be reported (if someone breaks into your house you'll still call) but without any of the active policing that this thread is about. How do the numbers compare?

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

A neighborhood in Seattle pretty much did what you're talking about a few years ago, on a rudimentary zero-budget level. In fact I've been friends for years with one of the people who were deeply involved in it. But it wasn't a "study" and I'm pretty sure nobody collected any statistics. And it only lasted a few months. I actually have no objection to it, what my comment said was that people aren't going to do it. And look around you - the model is right there. But in a culture where fewer and fewer people even cook their own meals anymore, even fewer are willing to personally devote their valuable time to DIY law enforcement.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

OP: [proposes alternatives]

You: "So you're basically suggesting Mad Max"

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Well, what are you doing right now? Feel free to organize your own DIY law enforcement. But doing social media is so much easier isn't it? That's EXACTLY why OP's proposed alternative isn't practical. That's not a criticism against you or anyone else here, it's just facing the truth. We could make OP's vision a reality, but we won't. Getting off your ass and doing it would prove me wrong, but a downvote just proves me right.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"You are using social media" isn't the gotcha you think it is. I'm literally taking a dump at work right now.

Either a reply or a downvote proves you wrong.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Okay, but at some point you won't be working or taking a dump, so you'll be organizing that whole law enforcement thing and we don't need cops, right? Good for you! Let me know how it works out!

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes? I can't emphasize enough how much this isn't a gotcha. No offense but I won't remember you for that long.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

My point is that people could be doing the DIY law enforcement thing right now, and they aren't. Reality speaks for itself. So either get off your ass and do it or STFU. What are you, 13? Blocking you dude.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

Well now I'm sad he'll never hear that people are, in fact, doing the things OP listed.

[–] perestroika@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Your post makes it look like a binary choice between cop-filled reality and cop-free fantasy. But there are marked differences between how many cops (many = often more stupid, untrained, poorly selected, corrupt) a society needs and what activity is expected of them.

Existing societies also demonstrate a vastly different need for imprisoning people.

Myself, I think that prisoners per capita is a better indicator than cops per capita. The latter gives weird results heavily tilted towards microstates (lead by Vatican, Pitcairn Islands and Motserrat).

  • Maximum of prisoners per capita: North Korea (undisclosed but estimated), El Salvador (1600 per 100K), Cuba (794), Rwanda (637), Turkmenistan (576), United States (541).
  • Minimum of prisoners per capita: go and have a look, it's interesting. The leading 5 have a trend towards microstates and very poor developing countries, but if one filters them out and chooses sizable countries with functioning economies, the first that comes across is Japan - with an incarceration rate of 33 per 100K. That's 48 times less than El Salvador and 16 times less than the United States. The first European country on the list is Finland with 52 per 100K, indicating approximately what a "western style" society can achieve. The EU average seems to be around 100 per 100K. The highest rated EU country seems to be Poland with 194 per 100K.

Notably, the first somewhat sizable European country and western-type society on both lists is Finland. It has the lowest prisoners per capita in Europe (at 52 per 100K) and the lowest cops per capita in Europe at 132 per 100K. It is not a known haven of rampant crime - it has really low crime rates too. Apparently in some conditions, you can have few cops, few prisoners and limited crime.

My guess - I could be wrong - is that the quality and coverage of social security, education and health care are what actually make the difference. Most people don't start criminal activity for fun. Contributing factors include desperate poverty, poor parenting, lacking education, mental illness and exposure to trauma, damage from disease and substance abuse, etc, etc. Lots of full prisons are probably a factor that contributes to criminality, by making a "higher education in crime" accessible to more people.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Very thoughtful, but your comment really should be addressed to OP and not to me. My comment was specifically a rely to, "Who needs cops anyway?" Not needing cops is the fantasy, needing cops is the reality. Sorry if you translated the word "cops" to "a cop-filled reality" but that wasn't what I said or meant. Misinterpreting simple terms as an extreme version that would be easy to argue with seems very popular. I think we need the number of cops we need, not a regimented "cop-filled" (or prison-filled) world at all.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›