this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
1010 points (99.1% liked)
Political Memes
11103 readers
1644 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes 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.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You sound really dumb when you summarize an entire political movement based only on the slogans that would be put on signs.
"Abolish the Police" is a catchy slogan you can put on a sign. A rational person would see that sign and think "wow, that seems pretty radical. I should look up that group or go talk to that person to learn more. How would you even do that?"
To learn more about what people are saying it's usually a good idea to go talk to that group. Especially, someone that speaks for that group and can outline exactly what they believe.
You, on the other hand, seem to go the opposite route. You seem to go listen to and ask the people or listen to the news media that oppose those groups with the signs. And that's why your entire knowledge of what "abolish the police" means is so one note. You never actually looked into what that means beyond a slogan. You literally think it means those people want the government to overnight create a law that says "no more police".
Of course you think it's silly and irrational. You have no idea what those people are actually advocating for. You're arguing with a slogan.
It's the same idiots that go "well, all lives matter". Because they summarize an entire political movement by a slogan, listen to the people that oppose it for an explanation, and then critize it without ever understanding it.
It's amazing how many people form their entire understanding of "the left" in this exact way.
And that is the issue. I literally though the same until I saw your comment.
However, you seem to have no solution for the few who cannot be fixed by a kinder environment and are essentially wired for crime.
I'll try to explain something that is fundamental to why right wingers are incapable of understanding what leftist are saying. Then, hopefully, you can reach the answer to this yourself. Leftist aren't saying that there is no need for some form of peace officers.
Right wingers (and really most apolitical people) see the world through the lense of "Ideas". They first define the "idea" of the Police. They look at slogans and ideas like "serve and protect". They see the Police as an institution based on how it is supposed to operate. This is likely what you do. It's how we are taught to think about the structures of society from a young age. It's not unexpected to have this perspective of the world. It's comforting in a lot of ways.
Leftist, on the other hand, do not simply accept the "ideas" alone. The ideas are important. They influence how systems operate and who is given power in society. But, what is most important to a leftist are the material outcomes. Do the material outcomes of the Police fulfill the ideas and purpose that they are supposed to. Who do the Police as an institution "serve" and who/what do they "protect"?
I'll leave that up to you to think about or answer. But, the fundamental problem with trying to convince a right winger is this disconnect. They think the "idea" of Police is being attacked because that's their only understanding of them. They are not subject to their violence, they are not discriminated against by them, and they don't have empathy for those that are. They are mostly entirely disconnected from them in any meaningful material way. Maybe a speeding ticket or an uncle that's a cop and "a nice guy".
When most leftist are talking about "abolish the police" we are not talking about the "idea" of a State operated enforcement agency meant to maintain peace. We are talking about abolishing an institution that does not do that at all. Because we are looking at the material outcomes of what their presence in society actually results in.
If you can understand that. Then that's a great starting point to actually have a conversation about "the Police".
But, right wingers, they can't get that far. They are incapable of thinking that "hmmm, maybe the Police don't actually serve the purpose I think they do". You don't even need to come to that as a conclusion. Maybe, you personally think they do a good job. But questioning the default ideas of a society, looking at the material outcomes of those ideas, and then pointing to their contradictions are fundamentally what leftist do. It's, in a way, a scientific form of thinking. It is taking the hypothesis of what "Police" are meant to do and then testing it on their actual outcomes.
It's often difficult for people to do this for the current structures of society. They are what we are used to and "how could anything be any different" is often the rebuttal to leftist ideas.
However, it's really obvious to apply this form of thinking to the past. Feudalism, Slavery, Woman's Suffrage, Apartheid, etc. Its easy to look back and say "well, clearly those things were bad". But, at the time, there was the same right wing though attempting to prevent progress by defending the "idea of the King" or "the idea of White/Male supremacy".
Sorry. This was longer than I meant it to be. But sometimes I gotta type out what I believe and why I believe it to solidify my own understanding of it. Hope the rant was worth a read.
But, if you can understand this, you'll see it a lot. You'll see a conservative defending the "ideas" of something and using everything they can to deny the criticisms of the outcomes. It's why they get stuck on "slogans". They live in a world of Ideas alone.
I understand this, and I wished the UK (where I am) had a sane middle party, that could, for example, reduce illegal immigration while making the legal routes quicker and cheaper
Sounds like you're actually looking for a leftist party. The only difference between an "illegal" immigrant and a productive contributor to society is paperwork.
I don't know the numbers in the UK. But in the US, the average immigrant is MORE productive and less likely to commit violent crime than the average citizen.
Simple answers. (1) Someone that's going to move to another country is an adult of working age. And (2) commiting a crime of any kind (violent or not) can result in losing a visa and being deported. The average citizen might get some minor time or have the money to get off.
If that makes sense to you. I really think you might be a leftist. You might just need to question the people trying to appeal to a nonexistent "center". They're likely trying to prevent you from understanding the left.
The "center" is usually just a means of the right trying to keep people from being progressive. The center (by definition) just works to maintain the current structures.
The people I'm worried about are criminals who are not caught at the border and that the government doesn't know about.
We need to both get rid of them and make the legal routes faster and cheaper to isolate criminals from innocent people.
Currently illegal immigrants should be given a path to legallity if they are willing to provide the documents and have done nothing wrong in both the UK and their home countries.
He's making shit up. The left was totally for less policing not to scare the minorities. There were very reasonable arguments for demilitarizing police and moving the resources to crime prevention and social services, there were batshit crazy arguments for completely abolishing the police and middle ground arguments for limiting the numbers of police officers. They are now pretending that everything other than the reasonable takes was invented by the right.
I do agree that crime prevention and social services are important and should get some more priority, however the police force shouldn't be removed or reduced to almost nothing because there are a few who won't respond to those.
You mean like reading a letter from AOC on the topic? Like the one I linked to? You mean like checking what was her stance on the very specific topic of putting more police on the ground?
I showed a very specific example of something AOC said but you're claiming I listen to news media that oppose the left and that I'm arguing with a slogan. I don't think I'm the one sounding really dumb here.
Did you read it? Did it advocate for "abolishing the police" or did it talk about a specific police policy that was making police interactions more dangerous for citizens?
Like, we can talk about THAT if you want. But, did you notice you linked to something that really had nothing to do with abolishing police or even directly reducing police? It's talking about not expanding and hiring more police to prevent victimless and nonviolent crime. A policy that has lead to increased police violence towards citizens.
See how even when you try to link and point to someone on "the left" explaining something you're not even understanding it.
What point are you trying to make? You didn't even mention or talk about the specific policy she is talking about.
You barely have to dig into it man. It's literally the first part of the letter. My initial response to you was literally because you don't actually understand what "the left" believes and you're just arguing with a slogan. Thanks for proving my point.
I'm not going to play "No true Scotsman" with you. Any example I will show you will just turn into "that's not what the left really wants".
The fact is that AOC opposed putting more police in the subway in order to reduce crime. Mamdami put more police int he subway and crime went down.
I remember George Floyd protests. Mayor of some town (don't remember which) went to visit the protesters and they asked him directly, "are you going to abolish the police?". He said 'no', he was booed by the crowd and wasn't allowed to say anything more.
Here's The Daily covering this topic: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/326-the-daily-28076606/episode/policing-and-the-new-york-mayoral-83976608/
You can hear "the left" talking very clearly about having less cops, decreasing founding for the police, how defunding is first step to abolishing police, how "police doesn't provide safety", how police can be a threat to black and brown people.
As I said: claiming that the left was not for reducing the number of police is a lie and intent to rewrite history.
AOC doesn't speak for an entire movement, her word isn't law to us.
That's the problem with people like you. You can only view politics in an us versus them mentality. So if one person says something on the other side then obviously everyone on that side must agree. Which just isn't how the world works.
I think you'll find most on Lemmy support fact based ways to reduced crime. We should use our limited resources to do the most good. I don't define that as stopping and frisking random people hoping to find small amounts of drug paraphernalia. That's not the most efficient use of money to stop crime or even drug use.