Oh, the irony of the police "warning" us (hint: they play a large part in the violence, both directly themselves, and by enabling others).
Also:
TL;DR:
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Oh, the irony of the police "warning" us (hint: they play a large part in the violence, both directly themselves, and by enabling others).
Also:
TL;DR:
So what's being said here is that in the USA cops unofficially endorse violence against black people, while in the UK the police unofficially endorse violence against women.
Which kind of shows that it may not be a local culture issue, but more of a modern police approach problem. The WAY we go about a police system is fundamentally broken. Because there is no way you'd want to live in an anarchistic state, with NO police. At the same time THESE police have got to go.
Because there is no way you'd want to live in an anarchistic state, with NO police
That’s absolutely what I want. Community self defence is a far better alternative to the police. The police are a relatively modern invention - historically, people would just look after their own communities without any special powers or privileges. That is the system we should return to, more or less.
If you remove poverty from the equation, most crime would drop. Take special powers away from the police and just watch how domestic violence suddenly is much less of an issue.
Let me get this straight. You want to put the power back into the hands of men to freely beat their wives, and the only deterant is OTHER men, who can also freely beat their wives might stop them???
You realize that right now the UK is already dealing with this problem of violence against women, and the police are having trouble keeping up over there.
And now you want to remove the ONLY deterant for that type of behavior?
men to freely beat their wives, and the only deterant is OTHER men, who can also freely beat their wives might stop them
If you’re genuinely interested in discussing it, I’d like you to just have a serious think about what you wrote here, and see if you can come up with a satisfactory explanation for why you think that this description, which you claim is what I want, does not also describe the system that is currently in place.
Because in the current system, women are free to call the police, get care and housing to escape domestic abuse, and they arrest the man. In the UK, I'm hearing the amount of women calling is overwhelming the system, and more men beat their wives than police can arrest......but that just means that they ARE arresting them as quickly as they can. They just have an amount of liquid thats more than their cup can hold.
In your scenario, you're saying take the cup away, and everyone's on their own with there the liquid falls. Which in my estimation will only increase the amount of domestic abuse without ANY precautions in place.
Right now, we have a system that can't keep up with demand. In your system, we IGNORE the demand.
So… what you’re telling me is, under the current system, men can freely beat their wives, and the only deterrent is the police (OTHER men), who can also freely beat their wives, and only might stop them?
I’m not sure if you’re aware of it, but the police are infamously more likely to be domestic abusers than average. They cover up for eachother, making it harder for abused women to get away from their abusers.
Having an imbalance of power is what creates the conditions necessary for this kind of violence. I am proposing that we remove the imbalance of power.
You should also be aware that punitive measures are notoriously ineffective for preventing crime. They have no impact on crime rates, especially for things like violent crime, which are kicked off by heightened emotional states. People don’t think rationally in those situations, they don’t consider the potential punishment for the crime they’re committing.
The underlying cause of the problem has to be fixed - domestic violence is strongly correlated with financial insecurity, poverty, low level of education, high unemployment rates, low levels of community interaction and economic stress. Anarchism would effectively resolve all of those problems, meaning domestic violence rates would be significantly reduced. But even then, I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be someone that you can call for help if you’re in an abusive situation, I mentioned before having a community self-defence team of some kind - the only difference is that those people would have no special powers or protection than average people.
At the moment, the rich and powerful have control over violence, and they vest that power in the police and military, and enforce that monopoly. I don’t see why you think that’s a good thing. The police do not exist to protect working people from violence, they exist to protect the ruling class from the working class. Anything else they do beyond that role is PR.
We can do better just protecting eachother from violence. Society needs to change to be less individual and more collective, we need to go back to helping each other and being friendly with your community.
I really agree with the sentiment of the bottom post, but grammatically it just doesn't feel right to me. If two men kill two women each, then "how many women are killed by men" is 4, but "how many men kill women" is just 2. Maybe "how many women men kill"?
This is just really pedantic tho, the most important part is that femicides get treated more seriously
This is just really pedantic tho,
It really fucking is, and you're clearly aware it is, and yet, here we are!
the most important part is that femicides get treated more seriously
So how about you do just that? You do realise that you are perfectly capable of just keeping this kind of unhelpful bullshit to yourself, right? Because I honestly doubt anyone gives a shit if a poster made by a charity already taking femicide more seriously "doesn't feel right" to you, a person clearly more concerned with the artificial construct that is grammer than with the content. The only thing your reply has contributed to the conversation is to derail it. Well done.
No need to so hostile. I'm a woman myself and acutely aware of the sexist reporting when it comes to femicides. I'm also involved in protests and, as I stated, I think that something is being done to change the reporting is more important than the exact detail how. I also care about precise language, however, and I just offered a phrasing that I think keeps the same exact message, while being harder to misinterpret and frame wrongly by our enemies. We're not on opposite sides here.
Domestic violence is about 4 orders of magnitude more prevalent than terrorism, you porcine shitsticks.
The police should get their house in order then they might actually be able to do something.