this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
1380 points (98.1% liked)

Political Memes

5488 readers
3834 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 147 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

I cannot upvote this enough. It also mirrors how Portugal is approaching illegal drug use - with dedicated teams of professionals providing free, compassionate care. "The commission assesses whether the individual is addicted and suggests treatment as needed. ‘Non-addicted’ individuals may receive a warning or a fine, but the commission can decide to suspend enforcement of these penalties for six months if the individual agrees to get help — an information session, motivational interview or brief intervention — targeted to their pattern of drug use. If the individual completes the program and doesn’t appear before the commission again for six months, their case is closed."

It's not perfect, but it is getting results: "According to a New York Times analysis, the number of heroin users in Portugal has dropped from 100,000 to just 25,000 today. The number of HIV diagnoses caused by injection drug use has plummeted by more than 90 per cent. Over the last 20 years, levels of drug use in Portugal are consistently under the European average, particularly with young people between the ages of 15-34."

Turns out when you treat people as valuable and give them real alternatives they'll more often than not start cooperating in improving their lives. Not all of them - the model isn't perfect and neither are all people - but it seems to work way better than a "war on drugs/drug users" approach.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 66 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But if you treat drug users as human beings, where will the police get their justification for fuckmassive budgets to buy surplus military equipment painted scawwy black (because blue is SO civil servant, and olive drab just isn't COOL enough) and pay grifters to tell them how hard their pp will get when they kill another human being????

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 37 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Antifa. and, uh, you know. all those progressives that riot everywhere. and stuff. Collumbia State is a warzone!! a WARZONE!

(excuse me while I go vomit. /s)

[–] Alto@kbin.social 9 points 6 months ago

It's hilarious (in an awful, despairing way) how much of what we're watching directly mirroring how the media manufactured consent for Iraq

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 29 points 6 months ago (3 children)

In Oregon, we attempted to model Portugal's drug policy. The roll out was a mess and treatment centers weren't funded for several years. Additionally, following the advice of people in the field, the measure didn't include the mandatory meeting with the inter-disciplinary local commission like in Portugal. Instead, there was a hotline set up and possession became a citation. Unfortunately, the citation didn't have the number to the hotline. In places like Portland, the cops at least gave out a business card with hotline number on it in addition to the citation.

Several years later, we have a roll back of the citations to making drug use illegal again. It's not as bad as 2019, but it isn't Portugal either. The biggest strike against it was the public use of drugs in downtown areas and in small encampments. Sadly, this was happening nation wide, but Measure 510 was blamed. And this roll back seems to have taken drug decriminalization off the table in other states altogether. I hope someone braves these waters again, but the advocates who helped design the program have seemingly shuttered their legislative pushes elsewhere.

I wonder if things would have been slightly different if we hewed closer to the Portugal model. Sad that the worst off of us will suffer.

[–] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

There are definitely a lot of moving parts, and it's hard to know which are essential until their absence causes failures. Learning how to deal with addiction is not an undertaking the world is anywhere near finishing. It hurts to hear about Oregon's failure because a) suffering sucks and b) it may impede future efforts by way of being a bad example.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

I’m not sure if this is going to work with our current system because 1) I don’t see enough punishment for their moral failures, 2) not enough profit/investment opportunities to capitalize on their vulnerable position and lastly 3) half of our two ruling parties fundamentally disagrees with the concept of a better future.

It’s a good start, but I think if you underline how we can make big money while maintaining the status quo, then we could arrive at something doable.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ZeroCool@vger.social 107 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

It's almost as if actually trying to solve problems is the best way to solve problems. The US doesn't try to solve problems, we just criminalize them.

[–] 5ibelius9insterberg@feddit.de 24 points 6 months ago

This! Best treatment against homelessness is:

Give them a home!

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

Solves the problem of too many empty beds in a for profit jail

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Wiz@midwest.social 66 points 6 months ago (2 children)

UBH!

(Universal Basic Housing)

All these Universal Basic * programs seem to work, and the only things holding them back are rich people not wanting to be taxed, and the people they have brainwashed into supporting them.

[–] cordlesslamp 26 points 6 months ago (2 children)

idk, America seems to push Universal Basic Gun Owning pretty hard. Can't say that it's helping anyone tho.

[–] Agrivar@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago (10 children)

Hah! I almost wish that were true, just so more poor leftists would arm themselves. Guns (and ammo) are fucking expensive and there are no subsidies.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

But people might be lazy without the constant looming threat of exposure and humiliation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pmk@lemmy.sdf.org 61 points 6 months ago (2 children)

We have a similar system in Sweden, strong social safety nets etc. Some years ago I volunteered in a soup kitchen giving free food to anyone, and saw some homeless people. We can offer apartments etc, but some people are not able to handle it due to mental illness and/or substance abuse. It's quite sad, but ending homelessness completely is very difficult, and requires health care efforts on many levels.

[–] meldrik@lemmy.wtf 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

In Sweden and Denmark, where I am from, it’s technically illegal to not be provided with a roof over your head. But as you say, some people just can’t live in a home, for various reasons. Some even choose to be homeless or more precisely; be a vagabond.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Some people also want to be homeless, as weird as that sounds. In a proper system, those would be the only people who are.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ManuLeMaboul@lemmy.world 51 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

Why end the homelessness crisis when you can criminalize homelessness and have an endless supply of slaves to produce "proudly made in america" things for 15cts an hour ? If you think the bourgeoisie isn't that cynical, I have a bridge to sell you. It's the people who caused the fentanyl epidemic by getting regular folks hooked on opioids for profits we're talking about. Who do you think's causing the homelessness crisis in the first place ?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Why end the homelessness crisis when you can criminalize homelessness and have an endless supply of slaves to produce “proudly made in america” things for 15cts an hour ?

Because slave labor is notoriously inefficient relative to precarious industrial labor (particularly as your prison population ages), the cost of incarceration eclipses the savings (especially as housing/energy costs climb), and the cruelty inflicted on the populous undermines the health and well-being of the overall population in a way that stunts technological and cultural development.

States like Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma are case studies in economic mismanagement through mass incarceration. Four of the highest incarceration rates in the country and some of the worst economic growth in the nation.

Trying to treat homelessness through incarceration is a bit like trying to treat malnutrition through cannibalism. The policy is inherently wasteful and destructive, sacrificing far more than one might hope to create.

If you think the bourgeoisie isn’t that cynical, I have a bridge to sell you.

The real value of mass incarceration is not in the people you incarcerate but in the submissive atmosphere you cultivate outside the incarcerated group. Mass arrests create a functional economic blacklist of racial cohorts and social dissidents. Associating with these people can be as poisonous for your welfare as being one of them. And "high crime" neighborhoods can be targeted for "economic redevelopment" which often means mass displacement of residents through state seizure of property and other "slum clearance" measures.

I don't doubt there's cynicism in the modern incarceration system. But it goes a lot deeper than just "arrest a guy and press gang them". An enormous component of the War on Crime was busting up minority social welfare groups (The Black Panthers, most famously, but ACORN and BLM in more recent iterations) and scattering their non-incarcerated members.

We're seeing the same thing play out on college campuses. Organizers and leaders are targeted for arrest and expulsion in order to break up cliches of students focused on that individual leadership.

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago (8 children)

Short term profit is all that’s considered, longevity is disregarded.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 42 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It's important to note that this is a two fold application. Counseling is just as important as the home.

Mental health is vital.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 21 points 6 months ago (13 children)

While I agree that the mental health is vital, I disagree that it's of equal importance. Housing first has a winning track record, and bundling services can deter people from using either.

Someone might be just one restful night's sleep away from deciding that counseling isn't a trap.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Clent@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

The mental health needs to be optional to the rehomed or it won't work.

As Americans, we desperately need a mental health services for all program.

[–] antidote101@lemmy.world 42 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The "no preconditions" part is surprisingly important to solving lots of social issues.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 18 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Half of the system exists to prevent people from exploiting the system. Most likely at a net loss. As in, it costs more to prevent people from exploiting the system, than would be lost by people exploiting the system.

[–] lugal@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You shouldn't think of it that way. It's not about saving money, it's about punishing, dehumanizing and marginalizing people in need and sadly, in the eyes of some people it's worth it

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 40 points 6 months ago

It’s those preconditions that hurt the most. Gotta get clean to get help. Gotta get help to get clean.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 35 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

But how will such a classist society survive if the privileged cannot judge,extort and feel better for it?

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Won't someone think of the capitalists!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Demonface24@lemmy.world 32 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I really wish things like this can happen in the US. With the amount of money we spend on stupid shit, we could more than end homelessness and then some.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] liftingup@lemmy.ca 31 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Note that the "homeless" people in Finland are mainly people who refuse to accept support from the social welfare, this is because they prefer to get drunk instead of spending it on food and rent. The social welfare eventually suggests a different system for such people: pay the rent for them and give a special card that can be used for anything except alcohol and cigarette. If the people keep refusing that other option, then they went homeless on their own accord and keep spending the welfare on alcohol and living on the streets. Such people are very rare in Finland in reality however, but they do exist.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 30 points 6 months ago (4 children)

It’s not about solving homelessness. It’s about class warfare. The haves and have nots. It was never about a better society. It never will be.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] LazyBane@lemmy.world 30 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Here in the UK we just pretend it's not a problem by calling it a lifestyle choice.

[–] tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I see that more and more in the US, people saying things like "what can we do to help them, most homeless people want to live that way" like wtf?

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Because of the way media seems to work these days.

There is no denying that a small percentage of homeless people are too far gone to help and would rather live that way for whatever reason.

Any person with some critical thought should be able to remove them from the discussion and focus on the vast majority of homeless people that can be helped, where the media will just show this one person and be like see there isn’t any point.

The same can be seen for peaceful protests. We have 10,000 people protesting peacefully and one lunatic being violent. We all know what the news will show the next day.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Veraxus@lemmy.world 27 points 6 months ago

I get what you’re saying, but what if cruelty is the point?

[–] s_s@lemm.ee 19 points 6 months ago (9 children)

Yeah but the rich have to pay taxes!

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] gearheart@lemm.ee 15 points 6 months ago (3 children)

If everyone voted for a wealth tax we could have small apartments and counseling for the homeless. No more homeless in our streets. :) the surplus of cash could also improve our infrastructure. More public transportation and bullet trains 😉

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

Thats because they wanted to solve the problem.

America doesnt want to solve problems.

It just wants cruelty. Cruelty isnt a byproduct. Its the end product.

[–] ElCanut@jlai.lu 10 points 6 months ago

Where profits?

[–] ekZepp@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago
[–] Eol@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 months ago

Homelessness is a tactic in social marketing. America needs homelessness to stay America.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Not in my backyard. Also; not in my town; not in my city; not in my district; not in my county; not in my state; not in my country.

This whole place is going to hell.

load more comments
view more: next ›