this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2026
413 points (98.6% liked)

Political Memes

12806 readers
2049 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) 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.

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

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

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 92 points 2 hours ago (13 children)

"But you'll ruin..."

No the fuck you won't. They ruined it with their choices and actions. He'll face consequences for what he did, not for what someone else said.

[–] Carmakazi@piefed.social 34 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

It's coming from the same cohort of people who lynched black men for looking the wrong way at a white woman. There's no unforgivable deed to them, only in groups and out groups.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 5 points 37 minutes ago

Conservative morality is built on the principle that there are good people and bad people. Everything the good people do is good; everything the bad people do is bad. And it's not just rhetoric, they actually see the world this way.

It's why they can be outraged about a tan suit, but not give a shit about hosting a closed-door meeting with known Russian spies. Wearing a tan suit was done by a bad person, so it's bad. Meeting with Russian spies was done by a good person, so it's good.

Their morality is defined not by their actions, not by the consequences of their actions, nor even the intention of their actions -- it's defined by identity. If you're part of the 'good people' group, you can do no wrong, and even if you do terrible things, it was probably for the benefit of the good people group, so you're forgiven. If you're part of the 'bad people' group, nothing you do is ever good enough, and even the slightest deviation from any norm will be treated as an act of pure evil, and if you ever do anything that seems good, it must be a trick, nothing but false pretenses.

It's deeply intertwined with religion, where they first learn such morality: everything God does is good because (by definition) God is good. 'Good' is defined in relation to godliness. Everything Satan does is bad because (by definition) Satan is evil. If something good happened to you, God did it. If something bad happened to you, Satan did it. When that forms the basis of your morality, it begins to extend into in-groups and out-groups, and that's where you get mainstream conservative morality from.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 51 minutes ago

I was gonna write a reply to this, but I felt it was more appropriate as a top comment, so I'm gonna paste the link here.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 12 points 1 hour ago

Never mind that coming forward with allegations against powerful men ALSO ruins the victims life in highly patriarchal societies. Hell, half the time, the victims are ruined and the predators are celebrated for “beating the allegations.”

Like I need people to understand, NO ONE has ever become rich and famous by accusing a rich person of sexually assaulting them.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 5 points 59 minutes ago (1 children)

Disclaimer: Fuck victim blaming; rape victims have every right to report rapists and nobody has the right to tell them to do otherwise.

Gonna play devil's advocate for a second, but there's an argument that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, by which I mean that since society as a whole doesn't tend to believe in second chances, someone getting convicted for rape would (edit: have the chance to, I overstated my point here) make them unemployable way beyond the point most people would feel further punishment is reasonable (unless they're rich of course). Asking rape victims not to report their rapists is of course total bullshit—and it's even more bullshit that this rhetoric is much more socially accepted for rape and similar crimes than it is for, say, theft despite a conviction being similarly disastrous in both cases—but there's not nothing to the idea the sum total of consequences resulting from the reporting would exceed the level that's desirable even for such a heinous crime as rape, doubly so for America where the sex offender registry system has received criticism from organizations such as Human Rights Watch. All of which is to say: Part of it is definitely misogyny, but I do wonder if the "you'll ruin his life" argument would be less common if getting convicted for rape at 20 wasn't liable to make one homeless (or stuck in the prison-industrial complex) at 60. It would dovetail with the historical pattern (thinking of early modern England here, though that system was far, far crueler) where excessive punishment by the authorities makes it less likely for people to report crimes. Though even that assumes the punishment is excessive; it could definitely be argued that the rapist being homeless 40 years later is an appropriate punishment for the victim having PTSD 40 years later.

PS: To reiterate, fuck victim blaming; rape victims have every right to report rapists and nobody has the right to tell them to do otherwise.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 4 points 54 minutes ago (3 children)

someone getting convicted for rape would make them unemployable way beyond the point most people would feel further punishment is reasonable

Oh really? Because I haven't seen proof of that. Even Brock Turner has a job.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 5 points 49 minutes ago* (last edited 48 minutes ago) (2 children)

The entire Epstein class is proof of that. Hell, the legal system treats rapists better than it treats trans or bipoc people

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 3 points 47 minutes ago

It feels really silly for them to build up these strawman arguments about how rapists have their lives ruined when we have the current administration in power right now.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 39 minutes ago (1 children)

That's why I said "unless they're rich." Obviously the ruling class gets special privileges.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 points 15 minutes ago (1 children)

A 20-year review of reported rape and sexual assault cases found that 89% were “founded” by law enforcement, meaning police determined that the crime more than likely occurred.

But only 8% of reported rape and sexual assault cases ended in conviction.

In other words, police believed most reports, but very few cases led to the perpetrator’s conviction. Survivors can be believed and still not get the legal outcome they seek.

It's not just the rich that don't get prosecuted.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 0 points 5 minutes ago (1 children)

That's pretty bad but I don't think it has much to do with the subject? How the actual court system treats rapists (way too leniently) and how the entire rest of society does (the subject of this argument) are two different topics. That said the US court system (and probably most others) is famously skewed towards the rich; it's just that with what we might call a miss rate of 90% there's not much room for class divisions to be decisive on a population level.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 minutes ago* (last edited 1 minute ago)

You brought up how being convicted of rape with make the rapists unemployable.

So I brought statistics about how low the conviction rates are for rapists.

It is NOT just rich people that don't get prosecuted for rape and sexual assault.

[–] Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org 2 points 40 minutes ago (5 children)

Yeah, that only doesn't happens to the Epstein class. To these people down the pyramid, is a hell. Even worse when it comes to false claims.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 35 minutes ago (1 children)

I'm going to have to dig around for evidence for the broader developed world so I can make a decent case (or conclude that there's no such case and amend/retract what I said), but since your example is from America for now I can refer you to the Human Rights Watch link. But also do you have a source for that?

[–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 2 points 35 minutes ago

Ruined lifes are a valid point, but I care more about the lifes he ruined than his own.

That said, I think serving his time and proving he's no longer a threat to the public, he should be allowed to live a normal life again. Maybe with the exclusion of certain jobs like policeman, judge or I don't know, President, for example.

[–] 18107@aussie.zone 2 points 17 minutes ago

If the truth would ruin their life, then their decision already did. Your silence only harms their next victim.

[–] Enkrod@feddit.org 25 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children)

If they change, really change, pay their dept so society and become a better person, they can still go on to those offices. But at least their behavior is on record and people can check IF they actually have become a better person.

If you don't report them, you don't trigger that mechanism, they don't change and we don't check as thoroughly. Report them. If it ruins their life, then it's because they remained a shitty person.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 52 minutes ago (2 children)

I don't think that's how that works. Potential employers aren't checking if anyone "became a better person."

[–] Enkrod@feddit.org 1 points 48 minutes ago (2 children)

So... not reporting them would be better in your opinion?

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 44 minutes ago (1 children)

Absolutely not lmao, just saying that "people can check" really underestimates the impact.

[–] Enkrod@feddit.org 2 points 37 minutes ago* (last edited 37 minutes ago)

Yeah, but you know. I personally believe that if someone believably has paid their dept, sought to better themselves and make amends. They should at least have a chance to plead their case.

Forgiveness isn't something someone is owed, it is earned. But as a society, we should embrace those who do the hard work to earn it. Reformation, rehabilitation and reintegration make for a better society than telling somebody they will never ever, ever be forgiven and there is no way back for them.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 points 47 minutes ago

Y'know, so their lives aren't ruined. /s

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 points 48 minutes ago

Potential employers aren’t checking if anyone “became a better person.”

Most employers don't background check their employees much at all.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 57 minutes ago (1 children)

Needs a disclaimer:

  • This concern applies to white boys.
[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 points 46 minutes ago

It certainly hasn't applied to 24 year olds that rape teenagers.

[–] thinkingofyouihaveananxietydisorder@quokk.au 3 points 1 hour ago (5 children)

I'm generally against snitching, but if I get to ruin a man's life it does get awfully tempting.

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 hour ago

There is a difference between tattling because someone did something illegal and revealing the true nature of a predator. That's not snitching, that's accountability.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›