Boss made a dollar
I made a dime,
That was a poem
From a simpler time.
Now boss makes a thousand
And gives us a cent
While he’s got employees
Who can’t pay the rent.
So when boss makes a million
And the workers make jack
Then that’s when we riot
And take our lives back.
63K notes · View notes
Looks like I’m gonna be full of ‘controversial’ opinions today so I’m just gonna be real about this next topic that’s been itchin’ at me for a while:
I genuinely don’t think a lot of white leftists understand just how integral anti-black racism is to keeping class oppression in power and they often gloss over their own implicit biases and racism while using the argument of ‘uwu don’t assume all poor/rural white people are racists and have more compassion uwu’ as a way to try to ‘band’ together as a community of lower class people.
Here’s the thing, though: you CANNOT ‘defeat’ this class struggle, especially in the United States, if you CANNOT acknowledge the pivotal role that anti-blackness/racism in general has played in keeping poor communities struggling. Race has always played a part in determining rent, mortgage, education, and other basic human necessities within a community because if that community just so happened to have a lot of black folks in it, the ‘value’ of that area was inherently seen as ‘lower class’ or ‘unworthy’ of fair opportunities that could improve that area.
This should not be a surprise to ANY so-called leftist but I’m starting to see more and more white leftists try to weaponize the whole ‘don’t call rural white people rednecks, they’re not all racists’ and ‘we need to band together to defeat the rich and stop focusing on little things that divide us’ as a way to deter any deep conversation about the inherent racism involved in the class struggle.
Y’all really need to start reading more articles and books from past black/non-white leftists who have already talked about this entire subject YEARS before any of us became the ‘leftists who occasionally make good points on a public blogging platform’.
Because I’m tired of seeing white people complain about how poor/rural white folks are seen as racists and it’s ‘not fair’ to them while I’m an Afro Latino person who has lived in a rural area for MOST OF MY LIFE and has experienced nothing but racism from poor/rural AND rich white people, with no mercy.
White leftists need to stop using ‘class struggle’ as a way to band people together and actually work on their own internalized racism, do more research by actually READING information given about this subject by previous non-white leftists, and then confront the anti-black racism in their own communities. Especially if those white leftists live in poor and/or rural areas themselves.
Relying on black/non-white people to do all the heavy lifting for you and risk their lives by having to ‘educate’ rural/poor white people on how to be decent human beings to poc is not a good look.
EDIT: y’all can reblog this but if you start being disrespectful, I will block you.
16K notes · View notes
Listen I'm usually not a fan of being political on here but this really does put things into perspective, huh? This, re: the wealth of Jeff Bezos.
Eat the rich.
(Metaphorically. Don't... don't actually.... yeah)
40 notes · View notes
Class Divide (Marc Levin, 2016)
158 notes · View notes
Anya arrived at the castle for the coronation on behalf of her family. Everything had been put in order. Luckily, she had arranged for Dmitry to join them on the trip. He was only a kitchen boy, but she had worked hard to get him a position as her protector during her travels. She knew that she was engaged to be married, but perhaps she could convince her father that as the youngest of four daughters that she could marry for love. It will help if he is higher up in station somewhere to make it more possible. After all her things had been settled, she left her chambers to meet the queen.
“Wait! Your Highness!” Dmitry called with a cloak in his hand. “Y-You might need this. If you and Queen Mary walk outside, it will get very cold.”
She smiled adoringly out him. “How thoughtful of you. Thank you Dmitry.” She took the cloak from him, letting their hands touch for a moment longer than normal before separating. He turned back to his work, and she let out a sigh as she walked away from him. She jumped to see the Queen of Scots. “Oh, forgive me, Your Grace. I did not realize you were there.”
99 notes · View notes
World Building Prompt #401
52 notes · View notes
TIL that when mummification became accessible to middle/lower classes in ancient Egypt, embalmers started secretly cutting out the hearts of the lower classes so the elite wouldn't have to share the afterlife with them. The heart was considered the seat of the soul and vital to access the afterlife.
2 notes · View notes
once the worms have inherited the earth, they may like to be reminded of the last dying whimper of the lions.
sixteen ways to defend a walled city, k. j. parker
2 notes · View notes
Regular People Started Raising Stock Prices and Rich People Started Losing Money
Rich folk decided to start betting on when certain stock companies would fail and regular citizens found out and decided to buy shares of Gamestop to keep it from going under. Rich people saw the stock prices going up and, not only did many lose their bets, they also felt the need to buy up shares of now expensive stock. They didn't like losing money so they had companies like Robin Hood stop regular folks from buying or selling shares of stock so rich people could stop losing money.
9 notes · View notes
When your friend refuses to recognize the fact that others simply do not have things handed to them. }:(
1 note · View note
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the incentive to work. It comes up as an argument against certain social welfare projects like universal income. You know the whole, "If we give people money everyone will just sit around and smoke weed all day" argument. Something that seems terribly inconsistent to me in all this is that we are only ever worried about the working class individuals incentive to work, nobody cares whether the rich are lazy, lavish, and completely flashy about it going away on vacations where they drink for months straight. Which leads me to believe it isn’t the laziness, it’s just another piece of propaganda. The rich man is worried that the working man won’t work anymore, in which case the rich man might just have to roll up his sleeves and grow his own food—something the working man can do with his eyes shut and two other part-time jobs to boot.
Why do we let this pass as an argument that stops us from fulfilling people’s basic needs? It is in essence saying we should starve people in order to motivate them to hunt, when in fact, it is the well fed person who succeeds in the hunt.
13 notes · View notes
it's time for me to whine about mentally ill rich people versus mentally ill poor people and how, while mental health don't discriminate and all is valid, i as a mentally ill poor person have little access to help or helpful resources.
I don't even have the money for "fun bad coping" like alcohol or drugs or even video games to give me that "sweet serotonin boost".
While yes, it is wrong and ugly, I am resentful™. I am angry sometimes that I can't fathom someone being able to just up and go buy themselves a $7 coffee, no problem. to cover themselves with a $100+ weighted blanket. to own a laptop or a phone not from 2010. to be able to order $20 pizza if they don't feel like cooking. to be able to afford therapy and meds without the hassle of signing up for government assistance. these little things that feel second nature to well-off but are such a luxury to me. I'm so. Resentful.
I KNOW it's wrong. But I can't help but wonder if my depression would be just a little more bearable if I had the OPTION of affording things like my own bedroom, my own nice weighted blanket, a nice bathtub for bubble baths, if I could afford nice skincare and nice food for "self care hours" people talk about. If I could afford art supplies to vent with. If I could afford a Switch to play Animal Crossing to escape life. If even buying myself a coloring book and a box of crayons wasn't so expensive for us that I feel guilty for spending that $5.
It's just not fair. and sometimes i literally cry about it. my depression is very severe, but if I go on disability, i will only make $300 a month. i can't live like that. depressed or not if I don't get back to my minimum wage $600 a month job, I'll be living in a box when my mother passes away and we lose our tiny 2 bedroom apartment that 4 people share. some people never have to worry about any of these things ON TOP of actively trying to not kill yourself every day. but i do. and yes, it does make me feel so resentful sometimes.
23 notes · View notes
I appreciate the importance of protecting the physically vulnerable. But these lockdown rules are becoming too much for our mental health...
Personal experience ahead of course, so anecdotal. But we literally can't do anything in Scotland right now, if we’re in the situation where we don’t own our own car or transport. This is almost worse than the first lockdown because of the much worse weather we have now - sub 5 degrees C (40F), and only getting colder.
I can go for a walk, on my own, in the cold. (But not for long or too far from my house, because public toilets are all closed and you can't go in a cafe or a shop like you used to be able to.) I can get a takeaway coffee, from between 9-5 and at no other time. I can go to the supermarket. And that's pretty much it, as far as I can see, until three weeks from now, where those rules relax for four days only before coming back to full force. We aren’t allowed to see anyone we don’t live with, except one person in public, from a distance. And by the nature of the other rules, as well as the temperature, it’s all but guaranteed you can’t even do that except during the day - when many of us are still at work at our jobs.
I don’t live with a loving family who could have been my support network through this, where we work on crafts and bake together. I live in a small, shared house, in a city, previously chosen for reasons of closeness to my job, because I could not afford my own house, either rented, or purchased. I, and many younger people, are not alone in living like this, and I feel firmly that throughout this pandemic, that reality for younger people, and single people, divorcees, etc., has been flatly ignored and denied by those in charge of our government and media. This has been hard on those of us for whom lockdown and ‘no household mixing’ has meant that suddenly we have no social circle and no support network.
Now, in tier 4, in Scotland, I can't even pick up stationery from the shop to help me with my work, because all shops apart from supermarkets seem to be closed, and the supermarket near me doesn't do what I need. I can't get a book from the library. I can't visit a single friend that lives outside the city bounds - even in public, not inside, because it’s literally been made illegal. I would be fined money that I don’t have. (To say nothing of how this essentially means that richer people can socialize as they please, because the fine is a set figure, rather than tied to income.) I can't get the train out for a day trip to outside the city. As far as I see it, I can watch tv, or I can go on the internet, or I can clean my house...and that's it, for until an unspecified time. When will it stop? The information is conflicting, or non-existent. The existence of others like me is hidden, denied, brushed under the carpet.
I don’t disagree with the need for lockdowns, or rules, or restrictions to keep the vulnerable safe, per se. But this manner of rollout? This isn’t how to do it for the best public health outcomes for all of your citizens, or to help people believe that they are valued and should give back to their country.
5 notes · View notes
Class Divide in The Terror
The TV series gives a general impression that Lieutenant Little (and presumably most of the officers) is from a property owning family and Jopson is not. Meaning Little has the right to vote but Jopson doesn't. (By the mid-1860s, Parliament was in the process of extending the vote to the working class. With the Second Reform Act, 1867 In 1866, all voters had to be male adults over 21 years of age. The right to vote was still based upon a property qualification.) Men of lower birth were just considered to be empty headed and incompetent unless they were doing a job or serving someone of higher standing and they were regarded as utterly expendable. I feel like Jopson has a kind of internalized oppression thing going on ‘cos a big part of his character is his belief in his own worthlessness outside of serving and making sacrifices for the officers above him.
This prejudice and class divide is silently communicated in the officers' behavior around Jopson. But I feel like Little occasionally conveys respect and admiration for Jopson through his glances. I think Little’s struggling with his own prejudice. But he’s also patronizing and shoots down Jopson’s point of view after Jopson has worked up the confidence to have a say once he’s been promoted to Lieutenant. Little didn’t respect Jopson enough to include him in the plan to march south but I like to think they had a falling out and Little lost his confidence.
I freaking love how the TV series portrays Jopson and Crozier’s friendship because Crozier clearly sees Jopson as more than a paid confidant and is not prejudicial towards him at all. So sweet. This is why Jopson is so loyal and loving in return, I think Crozier was the first person to treat Jopson like his thoughts and feelings were worth something.
20 notes · View notes
So what IS the difference between a feminist and a marxist anyway???
6 notes · View notes
Flogging a Dead Worker
Flogging a Dead Worker - #New #Poem #Poetry #Death #Work #Bones #Mortality #Morbidity #FigureitOut #DeathofTheAuthor
Dance of Death (Credit: Wellcome Collection gallery (2018-03-28): https://wellcomecollection.org/works/g3en2wwn CC-BY-4.0)
Come sunbleached bones, Don’t envy me. My frame’s the same as yours. Your femurs creak, and fractured now. Mine live and fed with meat, of course. Come wincing skull, Don’t look so glum. Though your dome, empty, clatters. All the while mine’s full besides, of science, sense,…
View On WordPress
1 note · View note
i dont think rich people should be the focus of so much media
especially in teen shows and such, i wish shows would portray more lower class characters. Not just in a character but the whole setting. most shows are kinda geared towards the middle class, so they show most often those settings or the richie riches. but there’s a difference between shows focusing on the upper class like succession (not a teen show but oh well, shows how rich ppl function) or gossip girls, and the whole slew of shows that focus on a middle class experience.
(this is my succession plug btw, pls watch it)
the only show i can currently think of that goes this route is shameless, on my block and vague memories of British shows . i think its needed to show how people without luxury or much spending ability live, realistically. shameless is great, but i think the criminal edge isn’t the representation i’m looking for. i want to see teens and adults with realistic wardrobes and class struggles and a little bit of that expose capitalism for what it is kind of ish. teen (i’m sorry most mentions are teen shows) shows are filled with the evil rich bitch trope but also the rich protagonist.
even in a show like Elite, where class and money are discussed by the characters, s2′s Cayetana pretends to be as rich as the two “old money” main girls, when she’s eventually discovered and exposed, there’s almost a feeling of how dare she try to go against her superiors vibe in the show and in the fandom. a little bit of though there’s other reasons to dislike her character i’m sure the she tried to go above her station part and was put in her place has a little to do with it
i just think its time for media that doesn’t sensationalize poorness, but treats it honestly. not for as a grungy, rebellious statement or gritty,gross kind of pornographic mess. there’s so many more stories that can be explored from homelessness to education system and all the fun stuff from both a teen perspective and beyond. sometimes it feels like drama is manufactured while there’s so much real life drama that can be used that hold actual weight. also i’m not promoting shows be ultra realistic and all we get to watch is how shit everything is in real life but to incorporate it into stories.
(also my least favorite trope are when characters go to the wrong side of the tracks to experience “the real party” because rich people are so boring and stuffy and traditional)
9 notes · View notes
Neoliberalism is a concept that has largely shaped the world we live in today. First popularized in the 1980s by world leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, it was the successor to the Keynesian economic system that most developed nations had adopted post World War 2. However, for a system as influential as it is, there’s still a great deal of confusion about what it really stands for and whether it’s ideal for a strong economy or not.
Neoliberalism is a school of thought that believes that every human interaction is driven by greed. In other words, people’s actions, relationships, and choices are all motivated by what that person might gain economically from them. Neoliberalism argues that self-interest is the driving force for any economy and for human progress as a whole, and that it should be encouraged rather than treated as a vice. It also posits that the competition an individual may face while propelling their self-interests would only encourage them to work harder and produce a product or service that meets a much higher standard. Without adequate competition, people are less motivated to do the very best they can – their consumers simply have no alternative to buy from.
Although this particular school of thought is often referred to as “capitalism”, it’s important to remember that by definition, a capitalist system is simply a system that aims to acquire capital, or profit. Neoliberalism, the system that many developed countries still incorporate into their economic systems today, is a type of capitalism – it promotes economic gain by increasing market competition and advocating for more privatized industries over public (government owned) ones.
The term “neoliberalism” in today’s context can be a little confusing, especially since the word “liberal” is commonly associated with civil rights and social equality advocacy (the ideals that these movements revolve around actually support government run industries and propose a tilt of the current economic model towards socialism). However, the “liberalism” that the term originated from referred to economic liberation – that is, a transfer of economic power from the government to individuals. It was popularized in the 19th century, and has dominated the global economy ever since.
After the Cold War, the people were largely turned off by capitalism. The economic crises and recessions of the 1920-30s were fresh in mind, and it was clear that a new system, that would prevent the economy from crashing periodically, had to be drawn up. Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom concluded that “both socialism and capitalism [were] dead”, and the Keynesian economic system subsequently adopted a blend of the two – it recognized the importance of market competition and individual economic liberty, while also implementing policy interventions aimed to curb the inherent flaws in capitalism that so often resulted in financial breakdowns, depressions, or mass unemployment epidemics. This system soon began rising in popularity in previously neoliberal nations, and for good reason. Their economies were booming, and growing at consistent rates.
However, in the early 1970s, the Keynesian system started to see another recession coming its way. The reasons for this recession were external and had little to do with the economic model being followed, but the economic elites who previously profited off capitalism began panicking, worried that their wealth may be in danger. The elites understood that a compromise was necessary following the devastating impacts of the war, and they were willing to share their wealth with the masses. However, once they felt that this wealth was in danger, they began advocating reverting to the old capitalist system – marketed to the people as a new one called neoliberalism.
The idea posited by Keynesian economists that government regulation was necessary to keep big industries in check, avoid future economic breakdowns, and protect the interests of the environment, the society, and every individual was rebranded as an overextension of power and an attack on individual liberties. It’s also important to note that during this time, the anti- Vietnam war crowd was also resentful of the restrictions that were placed on behavior and thought, and the way that government mandated controls were being implemented all over the country. This greatly contributed to the rhetoric that government intervention was bad and needed to be shut down.
All of this was only talk, however, until neoliberal leaders like Thatcher and Reagan were elected into office. They each began reforming their respective governments – loosening regulations on industries, de-centralizing certain industries (like telecommunication or energy production), and cutting down taxes on the people, mainly the economic elites. By the time Reagan was out of office, the highest tax that an individual in the U.S could pay dropped from 70% to 28%. The rationale was that the wealthiest people in society, when taxed less by the government, would use their wealth to make larger investments that would, in turn, lead to astronomical economic growth which would benefit everyone. This proposed chain of events is often called the trickle- down economic theory, and is still referenced today (U.S. President Donald Trump used it to justify his tax cuts on the wealthy).
However, as Owen Zidar has recently shown in a research study published in the Journal of Political Economy, the assumption that the wealthy would use saved tax dollars to create jobs, foster economic growth, or bridge the gap between the rich and poor is a fallacy. Instead, he found that they are actually more likely to simply hoard their wealth. The U.S, which currently taxes its billionaires at a rate of 23% (while the average tax rate for the public is 28%), is one of the best examples of the massive wealth inequalities triggered by relying on trickle-down economics – as of 2013, the top 10% possessed 76% of the country’s wealth, while the bottom 50% only possessed 1%. Back when the ultra-rich were taxed heavily, the government implemented welfare programs which sought to stabilize this gap, but neoliberal economic policies provided a way for the wealthy to keep national wealth all to themselves – which doesn’t promote economic growth at all.
Today, neoliberalism’s biggest advocates are right wing or conservative parties, although the term itself might indicate otherwise. However, not many openly identify with the label, as it’s gained a bad reputation because of leaders like Pinochet, the former President of Chile. Although Chile’s economy did much better than her Latin American counterparts and she experienced a sharp decrease in poverty levels, the rampant inequality that neoliberalism inevitably triggered led to a divide between the business/political elite and the people of Chile, sparking nationwide protests and a call for more public provisions and greater taxes on the wealthy. However, the ideas of unregulated industries, privatized businesses, and minimal government interference are still hugely popular. Countries like the U.S, which were founded on individualist over monarchial government systems, often claim that the free market capitalism that neoliberalism champions is one of the core values of the nation, and cannot be compromised on.
Not only has neoliberalism led to an increase in wealth and income inequality, but it has also stripped power away from governments and given it to powerful and wealthy multinational companies. For example, the way that governments were forced to immediately fold and bail the banks out in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, and the inability of governments to prevent social media platforms from infringing on the integrity of their own elections - or even force them to attempt to do so. Governments are becoming increasingly powerless in comparison to the ultra-rich. Ironically, even though neoliberal ideals acknowledge that the government still plays a small role in the economy, the nature of the system enables large corporations to accumulate enough wealth and power to influence the few decisions that the government actually gets to make. For example, a corporation that is essentially a pillar of the economy – providing millions of jobs and paying a large percent of the tax the government receives from its people – could threaten to relocate to a different country if they don’t comply with their demands.
Neoliberalism is a very unique system of organizing society. It’s played a massive role in shaping the world we live in today, and even though the label has been defamed, the ideas that propelled the revolution are still highly popular today. Today, political parties remain conflicted over whether Keynesian or Neoliberal economics are the best way to minimize adversity and maximize economic growth. David Harvey has classified neoliberalism as “a project to achieve the restoration of class power”, and unfortunately, this holds true. Decades of neoliberal reforms have stacked the odds increasingly in favor of the ultra-rich and the billionaires, and have dug the economic lower and middle classes further into poverty and debt. In addition, the idea has changed the way we think about the world, and invited us to view society as a market, where every interaction is made out of self-interest, and where economic gain is the only kind of gain you could ever hope to make in your lifetime.
“Neoliberalism is the flood that raises those who can afford ships and drowns those who cannot.”
1 note · View note
Oh man, speed machines done pissed me off.
Okay, here’s the thing, and it will continue to be a thing until we all collectively understand and come to an agreement of the concept.
Ready? Here goes:
LAW ENFORCEMENT IS NOT CRIME PREVENTION!
Crime prevention is problematic in every way. It requires profiling and assumptions based on no deductive logical evidence (because if there IS evidence, then it’s law enforcement). Law enforcement can rely on the proving of a wrong that has happened to make it right through inductive and deductive reasoning (to enforce the law once it has been broken), but to prevent a crime, some humans have to have more rights than others in order to assume where and when crime will happen.
The ONLY way to prevent crime is through deterrence and discretion. This means making crime more difficult to accomplish, like not leaving valuables in your car, lighting up high-risk areas, or carrying pepper spray. IT DOES NOT MEAN SPRAYING EVERY SHADOW UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT WILL HURT YOU!
So, how does this get around to speed machines?
Well, having lived in 6 states over the past 6 years (moving for work), I have seen what feels like every possible social response to them from passivity to aggression. Speed machines lack the ability to differentiate discretion. They set a dangerous precedent for blurring the line between law enforcement and crime prevention.
Cops driving on the highway are a form of deterrence. People see them and slow down. It would be a woeful day were we to assume all law is black and white. Sure, structuralism is easy, but so is anarchy, and a rounded society needs to understand the balance of those two extremes to find a functional middle, especially a globalized society with people from hundreds of different cultures or backgrounds that fall on different sides of that spectrum.
Speed machines cannot tell the difference between speed of traffic or surrounding orders. They do not know when an ambulance is beeping for you to speed up and get out of the way or when the rigid rules of the road are “broken” for the safety and wellbeing of others to follow the flow of traffic or avoid an accident. It only knows three numbers: the set limit, the exception limit, and the ticketed limit.
Sure, you can fight it. But here’s the trick. Here’s why they are unlawful and illogical and a dangerous precedent. You can fight the ticket, explain the circumstance if you have any evidence. Maybe you get rid of it and win. But to do that, you have to be in court at 8am (courts which are currently closed, BTW), you probably have no solid evidence, and in the end, it’s a citation, not a ticket, and your violation fee is $50. You’re going to pay to be done with the whole circumstance and move on with your life without a second thought. The state or city make the money and the cycle continues.
Data gathering is nice. Having electronics that can enforce speed limits seems like it should be innocently a good idea: well, don’t break the speed limit laws, easy peasy. But to live in a society that rigid and structural, you lose functionality. Fine, I won’t break the speed limit laws, and you might die in the ambulance I can’t get out of the way for. We have to understand exceptions, we have to be aware of discretion and the importance of community awareness and understanding, and that comes from people, local trusted people.
California collected something like 1 billion dollars in speed traps (which we fell for a while ago, speed limit of the HIGHWAY suddenly went from 60 to 25 within less than an eighth mile and down a large hill with no posted reduce speed signs, cop was waiting at the bottom right at the 25mph sign, both hidden by an overgrown bush, said it was a tourist area, ticketed us $350, I was so pissed. Googling it later, I found that the DA was charging that city for its ridiculously high fines, and citizens were fighting back because tourism dropped so drastically in the area, hard not to feel vindicated).
It always reminds me of a thing I read about how some downtown area made parking downtown illegal, maybe it was NYC or Boston, I don’t remember, but the rich people kept parking there and a girl pointed it out to her friend as he parked and he just said “it’s only illegal if you can’t afford the fines.”
Maybe I’m just a control freak. I’m not a speeder, I’ve never gotten a ticket in my life and I prefer when people follow the rules. But I don’t like undercover civil police (I get investigative), I don’t like speed traps, I don’t like speed machines, and I think it’s because they all fall in that dangerous grey area between law enforcement and crime prevention. The speed machines that blink red and blue if you speed past them but don’t ticket you? That’s deterrence, people see the colors and slow down, but the flash-citation routine is sneaky, and I think it’s wrong. To me it says we civilians recognize law enforcement’s right to monitor us unsupervised and without reason. It says we give them the right to assume crime prevention (THAT’S HOW YOUNG BLACK BOYS GET KILLED!), and it says we are okay with being passive about the discussion among our peers when it comes to the civil questions of freedom, law enforcement, and what we expect of each other in society.
I know it was kind of a discussion around stop-light cameras, and perhaps this is hypocritical, but we as a society have determined that red lights mean stop, no exceptions. NOT stopping is a risk to others. Therefore, stop-light cameras that are programmed with discretion (as in not ticketing at late-yellow or early red), are different because they are enforcing a broken law? But the more I think about it, the more I think those are wrong too. They don’t know discretion, they don’t know when other problems are happening, and they are surveying tools. So yeah, actually, thinking about it, I don’t like them either.
Crime prevention may seem good, but when we look at what it actually costs us and the assumptions we must make to achieve it, the dirty tricks, and who pays for it or makes money off it, suddenly it’s a lot more dirty looking. I worked in loss prevention at a big department store for a minute and it was one of the worst experiences. There’s a reason that it’s private store personnel who deal with it, because most of the assumptions are based on nothing, the tactics of accusation and confrontation are not lawful, and any self-respecting law-enforcement officer would be appalled at the circumstantial evidence.
If we want more law-enforcement, we have to rebuild that part of our society as a trusted and desirable profession, not replace it with tools that could be used for other things. Like, I understand how CCTV can be really good, and how it could compromise individuals. I’m not scared of being observed, I mean, privacy and identity, sure, but that’s a whole ‘nother conversation probably. I’m still learning about that one.
They removed the speed machines in several cities we’ve lived in because of that exact problem - questioning the limit of law enforcement’s power to monitor or field assumptions without proper evidence, or accuse of a crime without proper public identification. Statistically, they didn’t actually slow traffic, they simply made the city/state more money. But we live in a changing world, people are scared or entitled, and the citation is only $50. If that feels like an only $50 bucks to you, then you’re not going to fight it, that’s ridiculous. You’re going to rant about it on Tumblr and wonder how this question isn’t a red flag to many others, but then return to your self-quarantine and remember that we have bigger problems.
There’s my rant. What are your thoughts on speed machines and speed traps and speed cameras and crime prevention vs. deterrence vs. discretion and how technology should or should not play a role in it? Does it do what it’s supposed to in your area? Or is it questionably placed in lower-income areas? Where does the community come in and what are its responsibilities in maintaining social order? How do we utilize technology responsibly as we integrate it into society? Anything, really. I’m exhausted thinking about it, and maybe I’m just angry because of that thing about feeling unfairly provoked, like the psychology of road rage and why we get so mad when people cut us off, because we feel unseen or unnoticed and that is humiliating? I think it was a Malcolm Gladwell podcast. It’s not even my citation, I just jog along the road and see people’s faces as they pass....... Anyway....... I’m going to calm down..... bye.
14 notes · View notes