this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
1294 points (99.6% liked)

Political Memes

8104 readers
2534 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.

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
Rooki@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
WrenFeathers@lemmy.world
1294
True (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 day ago by homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 9 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

It's a bit tougher, which is why I usually didn't bother. I'd start by accusing them of robbing a bank, and when they would inevitably say they didn't, I'd point out that my made-up testimony alone is just as verifiable as their legitimate one alone. Then I'd explain how being able to convince a jury of people - who weren't present at the time of the crime - that a specific person is guilty is a good way to make sure there's actually enough verifiable evidence to ensure it happened, and isn't just a setup by someone lying to get them in trouble.

If the crime was so blatant that people obviously saw it happen, there would ideally be enough physical evidence that the crime happened, and if there isn't, then it would still be preferable to let a criminal walk free rather than make an innocent person go to jail because they couldn't prove they didn't do what someone else said they did.

The tough thing is that some people have too large of an ego, and will just ignore that entire point, thinking that the people they "know" to be criminals should just be locked up because "it's obvious," and then we get to the situation happening now.

[–] baltakatei@sopuli.xyz 4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Relevant quote from Anathem (2008) by Neal Stephenson:

“You say of course there are criminals, but if you look at a particular person, how do you know whether or not he is a criminal? Are criminals branded? Tattooed? Locked up? Who decides who is and isn’t a criminal? Does a woman with shaved eyebrows say ‘you are a criminal’ and ring a silver bell? Or is it rather a man in a wig who strikes a block of wood with a hammer? Do you thrust the accused through a doughnut-shaped magnet? Or use a forked stick that twitches when it is brought near evil? Does an Emperor hand down the decision from his throne written in vermilion ink and sealed with black wax, or is it rather that the accused must walk barefoot across a griddle? Perhaps there is ubiquitous moving picture [technology]—what you’d call [video cameras]—that know all, but their secrets may only be unlocked by a court of eunuchs each of whom has memorized part of a long number. Or perhaps a mob shows up and throws rocks at the suspect until he’s dead.”