this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
25 points (87.9% liked)

Lefty Memes

4235 readers
1373 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.

If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low-quality!

Rules

0. Only post socialist memes

That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)

1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here

Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.

2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such,

as well as condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.

3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.

That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).

4. No Bigotry.

The only dangerous minority is the rich.

5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)

6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.

7. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

(This is not a definitive list, the spirit of the other rules still counts! Eventual duplicates with other rules are for emphasis.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Hello, you seem to be referencing an often misquoted statistic. TL:DR; The 40% number is wrong and plain old bad science. In attempt to recreate the numbers, by the same researchers, they received a rate of 24%, but only while considering acts like shouting as violence. Further researchers found rates of 7%, 7.8%, 10%, and 13% with stricter definitions and better research methodology.

The 40% claim is intentionally misleading and unequivocally inaccurate. Numerous studies over the years report domestic violence rates in police families as low as 7%, with the highest at 40% defining violence to include shouting or a loss of temper. The referenced study where the 40% claim originates is Neidig, P.H.., Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. It states:

Survey results revealed that approximately 40% of the participating officers reported marital conflicts involving physical aggression in the previous year.

There are a number of flaws with the aforementioned study:

The study includes as 'violent incidents' a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger. These do not meet the legal standard for domestic violence. This same study reports that the victims reported a 10% rate of physical domestic violence from their partner. The statement doesn't indicate who the aggressor is; the officer or the spouse. The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The “domestic violence” acts are not confirmed as actually being violent. The study occurred nearly 30 years ago. This study shows minority and female officers were more likely to commit the DV, and white males were least likely. Additional reference from a Congressional hearing on the study: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951003089863c

An additional study conducted by the same researcher, which reported rates of 24%, suffer from additional flaws:

The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The study was not a random sample, and was isolated to high ranking officers at a police conference. This study also occurred nearly 30 years ago.

More current research, including a larger empirical study with thousands of responses from 2009 notes, 'Over 87 percent of officers reported never having engaged in physical domestic violence in their lifetime.' Blumenstein, Lindsey, Domestic violence within law enforcement families: The link between traditional police subculture and domestic violence among police (2009). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862

Yet another study "indicated that 10 percent of respondents (148 candidates) admitted to having ever slapped, punched, or otherwise injured a spouse or romantic partner, with 7.2 percent (110 candidates) stating that this had happened once, and 2.1 percent (33 candidates) indicating that this had happened two or three times. Repeated abuse (four or more occurrences) was reported by only five respondents (0.3 percent)." A.H. Ryan JR, Department of Defense, Polygraph Institute “The Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Police Families.” http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF

Another: In a 1999 study, 7% of Baltimore City police officers admitted to 'getting physical' (pushing, shoving, grabbing and/or hitting) with a partner. A 2000 study of seven law enforcement agencies in the Southeast and Midwest United States found 10% of officers reporting that they had slapped, punched, or otherwise injured their partners. L. Goodmark, 2016, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW “Hands up at Home: Militarized Masculinity and Police Officers Who Commit Intimate Partner Abuse “. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs

[–] PotatoKat@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (7 children)

I'm gonna be that person right now, but i really don't care if it's a misleading or misquoted stat. If they get to throw around 13/50 or that trans suicide number without any care to the actual reasons I'm gonna throw around 40% self report to domestic abuse. Just like you can't stop them, you can't stop me. It'd be different if I had a platform of some kind, but I don't. If someone finds out misrepresented something oh well, they'll fine the correct info eventually and by that point they may have been swayed to our side by doing further digging. Go ahead and down vote internet numbers mean nothing to me.

BTW did you know that 40% of cops abuse their spouse?

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Serious question: What's the leftists position on police in the ideal but realistic socialist world? What would make ACAB irrelevant?

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

They wouldn't exist in this form under anarchism at all. However they're still very much bastards under ML-regimes as well.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The conflict between ACAB and All Vigilantes Are Also Bastards has always been my primary concern with anarchism tbh.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Socialism removes the fact that Police serve the wealthy, rather than the people, so this inherently means they aren't class traitors.

There would be an expansion of social programs and services, better access to housing, and overall fewer crimes of desparation.

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Police serve the wealthy, rather than the people

Are there common every day examples where this happens? I'll be honest my exposure to the police is extremely limited and from a UK perspective. Do you mean like the police will prioritise responding faster to wealthy people and are more likely to put resources in solving crimes against them than your average person?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

No, I mean by upholding Private Property Rights and enforcing racist and anti-poor laws they uphold the brutal status quo.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] timmymac@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Socialism ends up causing all the problems you think it's gonna solve. Name one time in history that it was successful.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What on Earth are you talking about? This is utterly vibes based.

Socialism factually does work this way.

[–] timmymac@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In theory. Never works in practice.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] timmymac@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Those are your success stories? Fucking laughable how stupid you are.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

All of those examples were successful in comparison to what came before. The ROC had a life expectancy in the 30's, and made no effort to address the basic needs of the vast majority of Chinese people. Cuba had a corrupt, authoritarian gangster state under Batista. Vietnam was suffering under brutal colonial rule. Under socialism, life expectancy, literacy, food security, and medical access rose dramatically and greatly improved the lives of the people living in these places.

So yes, they are success stories, they objectively solved many of the problems they were trying to solve and improved people's lives across a wide number of metrics.

[–] timmymac@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

lol. Got live in China. Tell me how that works out for ya. So stupid.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

mentions IQ

very cool, very normal. Youre right, cops arent smart, or they wouldnt be cops! On unsmart people are cops, because unsmart people are evil!

acab includes people policing other peoples intellect

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] boatsnhos931@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Hell yeah brother, no guns no police!! Hold up someone just stole my car and is extorting my family.. Someone help plz :(

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 months ago (9 children)

Do you really think all cops are bastards or is it like a easy thing to type instead of "corrupt cops are bad" or something?

[–] Seraph@fedia.io 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Enabling the corrupt ones is almost as bad being corrupt.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 months ago (6 children)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] terminally_offline@infosec.pub -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"did you used to be"

Followed by a quip about an IQ score. Something something glass houses...

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 months ago

It's a quote from a kid. Kids talk exactly like that sometimes.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›