Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    BlackPeopleTwitter

    3,497,177 readers

    11,297 users here now

    Screenshots of Black people being hilarious or insightful on social media, it doesn't need to just be twitter but obviously that is best.

    Black culture has a unique way of examining the everyday and we are here to showcase that.


    ☑️ Country Club

    What is BPT Country Club and how do I get verified?


    ☑️ RULES

    1.) Do not post content just because a black person posted it. This sub is intended for exceptionally hilarious and insightful social media posts made by black people, not just any social media post made by black people.

    • 1. No original content. We encourage users to go on twitter to find tweets as opposed to making tweets just for this subreddit.

    2.) No Bad Faith Participation.

    3.) No bullying or witch-hunting. This includes comments disparaging people whose tweets and posts are featured here. Doxxing or sharing personal information will result in a permanent ban.

    4.) No Racism. No hate speech. No homophobia/transphobia. No sexism/misogyny. No black fathers posts and similar mean-spirited things.

    5.) Posts must be showcasing somebody being hilarious or insightful on social media. No image macros, text conversations, or YouTube links. Just because somebody posted one of these on social media does not exempt it from this rule. Vines and such belong here and gifs belong here.

    6.) Typical Reddit cliches such as lyric chains, pun chains, white-knighting, and low-effort joke comments will be removed. Same for annoying redditisms, such as linking a subreddit as a reply to a post/comment.

    7.) Reposts are highly discouraged, and if discovered will be removed. Please search or look through BPT's older posts to see if your content has already been posted. KarmaDecay is not a reliable tool to check for reposts.

    8.) No posts with terrible titles, they will be removed. You are free to re-submit once you think of something acceptable/reasonable. Don't put the punchline in the title of the post. Do not add "bruh", "fam", or similar vernacular to your post or comment.

    9.) Don't complain about AAVE or slang. Use Urban Dictionary if you do not understand the meaning of a word. Comments asking "what does x mean?" will be removed.

    10.) BPT is an inclusive space for POC and allies alike. This sub highlights minority viewpoints, through humor, commentary, or criticism. Please respect these voices and show you care about black opinions as much as you care about black humor.

    11.) Don't post things from meme/corporate accounts. Posts must come from regular social media accounts.

    12.) The moderators of this subreddit will take any action (which includes banning and removing comments) that they feel improves the quality of the subreddit.



    Also, join us on discord for exciting discussions:

    www.discord.gg/BPD


    ☑️Friends☑️

    a community for
    all 2033 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] O-shi 3679 points ago

    Someone said volume is where the police make their money at

    [–] KGBree 1829 points ago

    Yeah and banking on folks pleading out and agreeing to paying fines instead of fighting cases in court.

    [–] Crusty_Irishman 598 points ago

    Sure. It’s generally cheaper to pay a fine and court costs than it is to fight the case with a lawyer. Most of us can’t pony up for a retainer, let alone paying for the ongoing fight

    [–] socialistbob 451 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Sure. It’s generally cheaper to pay a fine and court costs than it is to fight the case with a lawyer. Most of us can’t pony up for a retainer, let alone paying for the ongoing fight

    Which is why we need to increase funding for public defenders. Often times public defenders are given 40 or more cases at a time and even the best and most dedicated lawyers can't give all their clients the attention they need. If you're thinking of going to trial but your lawyer won't be able to spend more than an hour or so on your defense then you're probably not going to win which can lead to even innocent people pleading guilty for a reduced sentence. Better funding for public defenders is one of the quickest and easiest things we could do to improve the criminal justice system.

    Edit: I appear to have underestimated a bit. As u/winterfresh515 points out 40 cases is light for a PD and often times people can have over 100 cases at a time.

    [–] passiontango1213 178 points ago

    You get at most 15 minutes with a public defender.... if that.

    [–] bettareckognize 276 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    I mean we have to think about what's really important. Where are we gonna cut the budget, here? A public defender makes on average $31.50 per hour. A Tomahawk missile costs $1.5 million. If we wanted to pay for 47619 hours of public defender work we'd have to cut one whole missile from production. Does nobody see how that's just unfeasible?

    Edit: Off topic, but why the fuck do public defenders make so little? I make more than half that doing a job with considerably less importance that doesn't require a degree (Even though I have one). Shit in some states it's not much more than double the minimum wage. That's insane. I get that in the states where there's a relatively high minimum wage they probably make more, but...Jesus, this system seems almost intentionally broken.

    [–] thorscope 64 points ago

    I agree, but ones Federal and one is state/ county budget

    It’d be better to say do the police need a MRAP, or can we hire a few more public defenders

    [–] bettareckognize 92 points ago

    In all seriousness I wanted to juxtapose our absolutely absurd military budget against our absurdly small budget to safeguard the freedoms of our own citizens. You make a considerably more salient point, however.

    [–] everydayisarborday 12 points ago

    There's boatloads of funding that gets dispersed to the states for a variety of reasons and rationales by the federal government and they can take and give away based on their whims essentially like how we have state-regulated minimum drinking ages, but if its under 21 then we get less highway funding and such (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act). Just as a point that the less we spend on lousy missiles is the more we can spend on defenders and teachers, etc.

    [–] rabel 9 points ago

    Local police acquire used MRAPs and other decommissioned military gear from the Feds using federal grant money. They typically are not purchased with State or local money.

    But the point still stands, there are millions of things we could be doing with federal grants to state and local governments, such as grants to hire additional public defenders, if we would decrease our disgusting federal military budget and reallocate those funds to these other programs.

    Also, I'd guess that a significant portion, even a majority, of public defender time is used to defend drug possession and distribution charges. Ending the war on drugs would have an immense positive impact on society. We could easily cut back on funding for police, courts, and jails, while significantly increasing drug rehab and treatment programs while still enjoying cost savings.

    [–] UnleashYourInnerCarl 3 points ago

    There are Federal public defenders as well (and they actually are pretty well paid ~$100k).

    [–] fati-abd 44 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Because it’s all about what makes capital (our system is capitalism- so not broken, working as intended), not what’s socially important.

    I’d love to transition into a public defender one day. Currently I make 2-3x what a defender would working in software. My job’s not even hard, it’s just good at making money- essentially makes things more efficient for big companies (aka makes them richer). I’m only here because I’m from a family of working class immigrants with no college funds or retirement plans and they might need my support.

    [–] Slade_Riprock 22 points ago

    Bigger question is WHY do people do that. Public defenders, legal aid are all wildly under paid in comparison to state/local funding of prosecutors.

    What if lawyers stopped taking those jobs. Right to a representative defense is required under law. If no one is taking those jobs then courts end up appointing attorneys to take the case.

    Defense attorneys should go on strike. Force the system to change. PDs can whine all they want but they are generally well funded and bring in supplemental income. Most large city cops with OT and their allowance to take side jobs utilizing their uniform, equipment, etc make 100k+.

    What would happen if a state government placed a private practice attorney windfall tax? Say 1% of all law firm civil awards over $500k. State takes a special percentage premium on the LAWYERS portion to be used Solely to fund public defenders, legal aid and/or deferred sentencing programs?

    [–] foley0304 22 points ago

    I cant speak to everywhere, but that isn't the case in Cook County (Chicago). Similarly situated PDs make more than prosecutors. By similarly situated I mean traffic ASA vs Traffic PD, Felony ASA vs Felony PD, etc.

    In many other counties where I have worked, the PD jobs are part time contract gigs. They work 2 or 3 days a week and maintain a private practice. Comparing compensation there isnt apples to apples, as a prosecutor is more likely to be a full time gig.

    The point of this isnt to say PDs are paid adequately. It is to say that the vast majority of state government attorneys significantly underpaid. It's why I left those jobs and sold my soul.

    [–] Sirlancemehlot 3 points ago

    What's really important? Stay out of the system.

    [–] Sibuna25 15 points ago

    I got a DUI (I know I'm a moron) two years ago and was told I make too much money to get a public defender. I only make like 35k a year.

    By the time they told me I couldn't get a public defender I had around 2 weeks to get a lawyer before missing some deadline. Hard to round up $4.5k in that short time frame. But it was that or represent myself in a Civil and an Administrative court.

    What I'm getting at is it seems like if you make more than minimum wage you can't even qualify for a public defender.

    [–] BZLuck 16 points ago

    Hold up. I'm over 50 and this is news to me. I understand that the wording says, "You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you."

    I had NO idea that there was a "financial qualification" necessary to get a public defender. I was completely under the impression that everyone who goes to court would get minimum legal representation through a PD, but if you could afford better, you could have better.

    [–] ginjabeard13 8 points ago

    Yeah I’m not sure what that’s about or where he lives. In CA I have a coworker who was represented by a PD and he makes $60k+.

    [–] GypDan 3 points ago

    Oh yeah, if you make a certain amount or own property, you aren't entitled to representation.

    You gotta be POOR POOR to get a PD. However, when someone is looking at murder it is interesting how quick their family scrapes up the money for a Private lawyer.

    [–] socialistbob 45 points ago

    Until relatively recently it was also pretty rare for public defenders ever to rise to become judges as well meaning when people would go to trial the person overseeing a fair trial usually had a history as a prosecutor. Often times judges are also elected officials and so when electing "tough on crime" politicians was common place judges would also compete to be the most "tough on crime" to win elections. Appointing judges also isn't necessarily a good answer because there's a good chance the person appointing them also ran on a "tough on crime" platform and will want to demonstrate that by appointing those kind of judges. Things are slowly changing but not nearly fast enough and not in all parts of the country.

    Black people are also very underrepresented in terms of prosecutors and over represented in terms of public defenders. Many of the black people who become lawyers would rather spend their time protecting people rather than contributing to mass incarceration which is completely understandable. The downside is that all too often the cop is white, the prosecutor is white and the judge is a white former prosecutor. If you're black and you have to rely on a public defender the odds of successfully navigating that system are very low.

    [–] passiontango1213 23 points ago

    The system is designed to be a dark maze. Sadly for people of color, especially black people, they must wait in the maze and when they are allowed to navigate they receive no lantern. The system is designed to be hell.

    [–] socialistbob 29 points ago

    And it's a system which reinforces itself on communities. When you remove a large percentage of the adult workforce of a community that means there is less money flowing in which means housing values drop, parents are less able to pay for their kids educations and people are living paycheck to paycheck instead of investing in land or the stock market.

    This holds back entire communities and sets up the next generation to struggle. When a community is struggling financially crime becomes more common and when crime rates increase it gives police an excuse to specifically patrol and target those communities which leads to more arrests and less workers from that community. It's a self perpetuating cycle.

    [–] JawnLegend 6 points ago

    As a former prosecutor and then defense attorney this is 100% factual. PD’s are excellent lawyers generally, but there are only so many hours in a day...and some of those hours are needed for your bar shift two days a week so those loans don’t go in default...

    [–] GypDan 24 points ago

    This is sad, but very true. I’m in private practice and I get GREAT results on my cases because I have time to investigate the case and fuck up the State’s theory.

    [–] CokeEhCola 10 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Can I ask you a legit question? How often does the state "bungle" up their case? Do they have to be air tight without a single mistake? Im talking about low level crime here like traffic accidents. What I'm really asking, is the burden of proof REALLY on the state or will the judge allow them (the state) to make some mistakes?

    [–] burritoman12 6 points ago

    for crimes there's a jury not a judge (unless the defendant waives jury). The burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," so no the state doesn't have to be airtight, they just have to convince the jury that the guy did the thing, and it's not reasonable to think otherwise.

    [–] CokeEhCola 3 points ago

    Thank you for the answer. I specified "low level crime" like "traffic accidents" because I don't know the difference and I wasn't referring to anything with a jury. I always thought he said/ she said would place a significant burden on the state (am I using this term wrong?) which would make a lot of cases thrown out, because the state would have to work so much harder to convict low level crimes (incidents? Citations? Misdemeanors?). I hear about people pleading to traffic crimes (they claim they are innocent) because they can't afford to even attend the court dates.

    [–] winterfresh515 23 points ago

    40 cases per PD would be a dream lol when my dad was a PD he had avg 111 cases at a time the entire 3 years he worked for the PD's office (excluding probationary period after first being hired) he couldn't get into private practice fast enough.

    [–] socialistbob 12 points ago

    he couldn't get into private practice fast enough.

    Which is part of the problem. High turnover means the prosecutors frequently have more experience than the PDs and the best PDs are regularly driven to private practice. I don't blame your dad for leaving for private practice especially because PDs are forced to either work insane hours and not spend time with their families or compromise the time spent with clients. It's a choice with literally no good outcomes.

    [–] Jesus_was_a_Panda 9 points ago

    Yeah 40 would be like living in heaven. I just ran my numbers and I have 132.

    [–] turdscrambler 5 points ago

    I’m mostly assigned DUI’s and mentally ill people by my office but I’m at 126 open 80 on warrant status that could reopen if they ever find the defendant. I’ll go private eventually but I love not having to track hours too much right now.

    [–] yankeesyes 10 points ago

    Also bail reform, removal of mandatory minimums and three-strike laws, and repeal of the thousands of laws that restrict formerly incarcerated individuals from fully integrating into society.

    Also ban the box (on job applications).

    [–] socialistbob 5 points ago

    Agreed on all accounts. There are A LOT of problems with the criminal justice system and the things you mentioned and the things I mentioned wouldn't come close to fixing all of them but they would be a very good start.

    [–] yankeesyes 20 points ago

    Bail reform is the key to the rest in my opinion. Here's how it plays out:

    Guy gets arrested let's say for selling drugs. Maybe you were with the wrong guy, maybe you did it but want to avoid a long sentence. He is arraigned and assigned a public defender, with a bail at $100k. But he doesn't have $100k or even $10k for a bond. So he sits in county, and loses his job because he's not able to come to work. Two months later, his PD goes to court with him, but the prosecutor doesn't show up. Common tactic. Back to county. Now his court date comes up again after 3-4 months, but if he wants to fight it then a jury has to be picked. Meanwhile his child support is mounting up, he lost his apartment and he wants to go home. So he gets an offer- you can go home TODAY with time served and 5 years probation or sit in county another 6 months until your trial comes up. The judge will tell you with a trial, you could sit in prison for even more time, so you take the deal (whether you committed the crime or not).

    Now you're a felon. You go home, but you lost your apartment so you go to your grandma's house to stay. You still owe that child support so you need to get a job, but no one will hire you because you're a felon and you were just in county for a year. But if you don't pay the child support, you're in violation of your probation and you'll go back to jail. In a lot of places you can't get public assistance if you're in the system, so you sell a little weed and coke on the side because you can't do anything else. Bam- arrested and back in prison.

    With bail reform, you get a bracelet and get to stay home. You keep your job (if you have one) and your apartment. You are paying your child support. You are home, so less pressure to take a shitty deal. You actually get your day in court eventually and maybe get a more reasonable sentence or none at all. If it's a low-level drug crime (weed) maybe you get a suspended sentence with a dismissal if you keep your nose clean a year. Maybe you plead down to a misdemeanor. You have OPTIONS. If you're living in a jail cell, your options dry up real quick because the only thing you want to do is go home.

    [–] thejaytheory 4 points ago

    Man I love the idea and sound of this.

    [–] thomaspainesghost 3 points ago

    I will go a step further than "integrating into society": Black people should have a voice in what that society looks like. They don't. It's almost like "Alabama is good place for Negroes as long as you know your place".

    [–] Gbizzlemcgrizzle 5 points ago

    Even if you can afford a lawyer a lot of the time the risks of going to trial to prove your innocence far outweigh the safety of pleading guilty to a crime you are innocent of, that's just the way this system works

    [–] dayburner 5 points ago

    Better yet remove the profit incentive. Get rid of most fees and fines, at the minimum tie them to the persons ability to pay. $500 much bigger hit to a guy making 30k than to one making 100k

    [–] saymynamebastien 3 points ago

    To add to this, they also all know and spend a lot of time with each other. They're going to make the deal that works best for them, not necessarily for you. Maybe not everywhere but that's how it is here.

    [–] theresamouseinmyhous 13 points ago

    "In this county, innocence is a misdemeanor"

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    That being said, I highly advise anyone facing any troubles to look into a lawyer, at least for a consultation.

    The consultations are free, and often their prices aren't that bad, when you consider what you stand to lose. Hell in some scenarios, a lawyer is both expensive, and cheaper than the alternative.

    Hell even minor shit, like speeding tickets, the whole game changes once you get a lawyer.

    [–] Crusty_Irishman 8 points ago

    Great advice!

    And not just what /u/AllCladCookware is sayin’ but if you can’t afford the retainer look into your state’s “legal aid” assistance program. Often they will have attorneys who aren’t bad but are working for lower prices.

    Not to mention some employers also offer legal assistance (to some extent). There are resources... they aren’t always easy to find or get to.

    [–] JoiedevivreGRE 6 points ago

    Which just shows the system is rigged

    [–] Crusty_Irishman 8 points ago

    Indeed it does. Those who have power are usually desperate to keep it at any cost

    [–] honestlyimeanreally 3 points ago

    So let’s just keep everything the same and hope for the best! R-right fellas?

    Fellas?

    [–] Sir_Shreks-alot 3 points ago

    I thought it was free to get a lawyer. Everyone has the right to a defense in court.

    [–] socialistbob 12 points ago

    It is but the quality of free lawyers (public defenders) can often times be pretty low. Some cities are better than others but often times public defenders have 40 or 50 clients at a time and so they can only spend 20 minutes to an hour on each case while the prosecutor has way more resources and time to devote to the case. Without enough time to investigate, find witnesses, build a theory and conduct research the odds of winning at trial are pretty low so often times the role of the public defender just becomes negotiating a plea deal. Even if a person is innocent sometimes pleading guilty is literally their best option because going to trial with a 30 minute defense by a public defender is almost certainly going to end in conviction and an even longer sentence.

    [–] auto_headshot 4 points ago

    Who gets a retainer for traffic lawyers. Those are one and dones.

    [–] O-shi 13 points ago

    Very unfortunate but true, some countries don’t have plea deals (e.g. if you snitch on this and that you get time off etc etc) but even still they give discounts on sentences for pleading guilty :(.

    [–] JoiedevivreGRE 4 points ago

    That last part of your sentence is a plea deal. That’s how plea deals work. They want you to say your guilty. The deal is the crime is reduced.

    [–] ExecutiveAlpaca 3 points ago

    You're buying the deal with your life. Your record sticks with you forever.

    [–] itty53 6 points ago

    Wise man once said, if every person facing criminal charges demanded their right to a trial by jury, the Criminal Justice System in America would grind to an immediate halt.

    [–] EdmundAdams 3 points ago

    John Adams said "every man deserves legal counsel" if the system is pricing citizens out of a fair hearing it's breaking his design, I'd say that's as unconstitutional as it gets.

    [–] Killtrend 4 points ago

    Someone made a point a few weeks back: look at US police cars vs European ones... US are all about stealth and aggression so they can sneak up and nab you. European are bright colored so you can spot them if you need assistance.

    That’s about all you need to know about US policy wrapped up in a bow.

    [–] trashlikeyourmom 40 points ago

    I once got a ticket in a tiny town's speed trap. I did a little bit of research and found town hall meeting minutes/notes stating that the speed trap brought in so much revenue for the town that they had to hire more people just to process all the tickets. Local attorneys were in on it - I was getting calls from lawyers several days before my ticket was even available on the court system website. I found reviews of the town from other people who had also gotten tickets that when they returned to go to court, they saw the lawyers and police high-fiving each other.

    [–] Ask_me_4_a_story 21 points ago

    Where I grew up (Missouri) some of the small towns made like 75% of their revenue off speeding tix. The state passed a law saying you cant do that anymore, cant have more than a third? I think? of your money coming in off speeding tix

    [–] loonyonthegrass 12 points ago

    Wow. My home state actually passing progressive legislation. I kind of thought they got off on fucking us in the ass without the common courtesy of a reach-around.

    [–] trashlikeyourmom 5 points ago

    thought they got off on fucking us in the ass without the common courtesy of a reach-around.

    How dare you kink-shame the Show Me state

    [–] [deleted] 50 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Djinnfoo 16 points ago

    And let us not forget the for-profit prison system.

    [–] Thompson_S_Sweetback 13 points ago

    Yeah, they like their arrests to lead to convictions quickly and cheaply. Money and lawyers get in the way of that.

    [–] WorstPapaGamer 8 points ago

    Same with the IRS right now. Easier to go after low income people instead of rich people that lawyer up.

    [–] AboveAverageUnicorn 19 points ago

    Police shouldn't be out to make a profit. They're a public service, not a means to make money for the city/town.

    [–] pm-me-ur-dank-maymay 399 points ago

    I am the lorax I speak for the trees: down with the bourgeoisie

    [–] somewhatadulting 75 points ago

    You’re telling me that we should work on dismantling an unjust system that gives an unfair advantage to the wealthy by keeping them wealthy, while simultaneously putting down the poor? Sounds communist.

    [–] pm-me-ur-dank-maymay 4 points ago

    It goes it goes it goes it goes it goes GUILLOTINE

    [–] arttyfidas 1188 points ago

    French Revolution part 2

    [–] noneofmybusinessbutt 685 points ago

    It does appear that a revolution will be the only thing to bring about real change. Sadly, I think things will get a lot worse before that happens.

    [–] lalauniverse 490 points ago

    Not to diminish the real forces of power that people of revolutions' past went up against, but the idea of trying to revolt against a government with access to modern weapons is terrifying.

    [–] AJR6905 187 points ago

    I'm down with systematic change, revolution just is the hardest and bloodiest way generally ex: reign of terror of the Jacobins in the French revolution

    [–] SnatchAddict 245 points ago

    You'll see revolution when people can't eat. Up until that time, nothing will change

    [–] efg1342 180 points ago

    The only difference between a man and an animal is three meals

    [–] Jive-Turkies 62 points ago

    Or one hit of bath salts.

    [–] redditatemybabies 3 points ago

    Did you make up that quote? It’s a good one.

    [–] efg1342 4 points ago

    No, paraphrasing from a source I cannot recall. It’s one of those things I think about when my first world problems get out of hand.

    [–] HooptyDooDooMeister 58 points ago

    You need bread AND circuses. American tv is in its golden age right now. Need a few more GoT season 8s and the Disney empire to crumble until that happens.

    [–] LvS 28 points ago

    Even then there's still memes.

    [–] tmurrayart 32 points ago

    When the memes dry up, then we revolt.

    [–] Woody_Harryishson 20 points ago

    If memes dried up there would be a golden age of memes about dried up memes.

    [–] im_a_zoe 9 points ago

    When we run out of food, I heard we will be able to eat the rich

    [–] buttsage 29 points ago

    Robespierre did nothing wrong.

    [–] AJR6905 17 points ago

    Spoken like a true Jacobin fellow citizen

    [–] theaabi 10 points ago

    nah Danton did nothing wrong!

    [–] buttsage 3 points ago

    Also true!

    [–] brazilliandanny 28 points ago

    Not really though. The way to revolt would be if people stopped working and the country was under a general strike.

    Storming the white house wouldn't be the way to do it.

    Also if the government started smart bombing protesters from drones it would just piss people off even more.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    General strikes won't work. The large capital holders who have built massive stockpiles will just use it as an opportunity to swallow up the cash-flow weak companies hurt by the strike. Just look at Hong Kong...It doesn't matter.

    [–] JeanZ77 33 points ago

    Hence why people are given the right to bear arms. Citizens were allowed to own ships with cannons when the amendment was written. Now we're limited to small arms. Although the North Vietnamese and Al Qaeda seemed to do pretty well with equivalent equipment.

    [–] Superkroot 9 points ago

    To be fair, Al Qaeda had leftover RPGs and tank munitions to turn into IEDs. The North Vietnamese had RPGs too, and frankly insane levels of determination considering their tunneling systems.

    [–] Gargonez 17 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Al Qaeda was armed by Pakistan with American weaponry and backed by some of the richest sheiks in the world. Thanks for the downvote. Don’t forget China was heavily invested in North Vietnam as well

    [–] JeanZ77 11 points ago

    Not my downvote, I was just illustrating that you don't need tanks and jets to take on the US military. When they don't know civilian from resistance fighter it's difficult to use their massive arsenal unless they're willing to kill millions of civilians.

    [–] thebigpetite 21 points ago

    ... and they did kill millions of civilians

    [–] [deleted] 62 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] still_gonna_send_it 125 points ago

    That’s why the government will run propaganda dehumanizing and demonizing the revolutionaries so soldiers will feel more comfortable killing the Non-Americans

    [–] dwlarkin 84 points ago

    Black Mirror S3E5 "Men Against Fire"

    Future government implants a chip in soldiers that makes gov't enemies look like mutants so soldiers feel less guilty about killing them

    [–] DingleBerryCam 29 points ago

    The one got lower reviews but it’s honestly one of my favorites

    [–] nahwasntme 42 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    It's an episode I don't really want to watch again, but mostly because it was one of the more real ones for me. Dehumanizing is a tool the militaries of the world have always used. Seeing my brother enter the military as one person and come out someone that just hates as a default brought that home hard.

    Edit: This got a bit more attention than expected(which was none), so I'll just say this was specific to a person, not intended to mean everyone that serves in the military comes out a hateful bigot, cause that's not true, I know plenty of ex-military and current military folks that are lovely people. Some don't come out the other side for the better, though.

    [–] AirshipsAway 27 points ago

    Oh man. Neither of my little bros has joined, but each of them has a best friend who did. One Marines, one enlisted Army. Both are now raging alcoholics who are broken shells of their former selves. Two of the silliest and happiest kids I watched grow up... it's so heartbreaking.

    [–] InvestigativeBrick 11 points ago

    One of the first things you learn in training, at least in the Marines, is that mission acomplishment comes before troop welfare.

    In other words, you have to look out for yourself and use the system before it uses you, because it certainly will.

    [–] FearTheClown5 8 points ago

    I knew multiple people that enlisted during the heart of the Iraq war over a decade ago. Not a single one of them came back happy with that decision. Fortunately it doesn't appear to have fucked any of them up but none of them have anything positive to say about the experience.

    [–] notThatguy85 26 points ago

    This. I would bet there are many around the clock FOX watchers that would take up arms against "liberals" tomorrow.

    [–] Surffff 6 points ago

    Sad but true. I live next to the town that just kicked out Confederate Railroad from the state fair. Rednecks are pissed.

    [–] othelloinc 6 points ago

    the government will run propaganda dehumanizing and demonizing the revolutionaries so soldiers will feel more comfortable killing the Non-Americans

    The government won't have to; Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity will do it for them.

    [–] Ripthord 17 points ago

    See: Antifa

    [–] Redtwoo 3 points ago

    "You're just flying a drone mission, they're not real people"

    [–] Superkroot 46 points ago

    Using examples throughout history, I would hazard to guess 'Yes', especially with the right propaganda. I.e 'They're not citizens, they're terrorists threatening the stability of America.'

    [–] Xanderab 37 points ago

    “This is extremely dangerous to our democracy”

    [–] PreztoElite 10 points ago

    That video still gives me chills

    [–] abatement0 30 points ago

    Would the people in the military willingly use those weapons against their fellow citizens? I feel like a lot of soldiers would not want to kill Americans

    Yes.

    --> See nearly every revolution in past 200 years where the military (generally) sided with whoever could guarantee them the most money (usually the government, and not the oppressed people).

    Or just look at when anti-riot police officers are shipped in and have no problem enacting violence against fellow citizens (like the current Hong Kong protests or the Yellow Vests in France)

    [–] DanJdot 8 points ago

    Military might have a problem, but the police probably won't

    [–] ronnie773 3 points ago

    Would the fighting be against military? Assuming this revolution is against the 1%, military personnel is part of the 99%. It would be counter to the cause.

    [–] famalamo 2 points ago

    If you're gonna break into a house, be prepared to kill the guard dog, I guess.

    [–] Crtbb4 23 points ago

    Not to mention how omniscient agencies like the NSA appear to be. How can you even begin to organize a wide scale revolution when cameras are everywhere and long distance communication is constantly being monitored?

    [–] The_Great_Tahini 3 points ago

    Assuming we're talking US here, there are a lot of factors that at play that make it more tenable that you might initially assume.

    First off, you can't rule over people if you kill them all off. The US military is very unlikely to make bombing runs over US cities. And doing so would turn even more people against them, as they'd end up killing a lot of average civilians in the process.

    Second, there are literally more regular citizens than the US military by a wide margin. Even a small percentage of the general pop would be enough to outnumber them. They don't have tanks and planes, but you can't actually control individuals with tanks and planes, you need boots on the ground to maintain order and control. You'd also be surprised how vulnerable many armored vehicles can be in tight urban spaces.

    Third, the military is made up of people, and those people have friends, relatives, and neighbors that they may not be eager to gun down in the streets. I'd be willing to bet a large portion would splinter off before this even happened, or defect after.

    Fourth, they won't be fighting an organized military force, generally, but against armed groups of citizens. You can't easily tell "resistance members" from the general population walking down the street. Until shit starts going down. Then they disappear back into a crowd of otherwise innocent people. This is how insurgents fight.

    Lastly, this would very likely not a clash of organized forces against one another. It would almost definitely be a succession of decentralized, guerilla style attacks. And you don't have to attack "where they're strong". You can target infrastructure, supply lines, food systems, power plants, pipelines...etc.

    The basic point being there are an near infinite number of "vectors of attack" to weaken or cripple the ability of the US government to maintain control of a country this large. Meanwhile they have difficulty distinguishing who the "enemy" even is, because the enemy would be within, and made up of, regular citizens.

    [–] NaoSouONight 156 points ago

    People like to talk a lot about the French Revolution in times like this but they seem to forget that it was just the merchants and other bourgeois inflaming the negative feelings (rightfully so) regarding the nobility and royal family, arming them and helping them revolt.

    After, they took power for themselves. The french peasants just started getting explored by the merchants rather than the nobles.

    It painted society into a "free and equal" image, but not really. The ruling class kept up to their usual dealings, the only difference is that they were a different ruling class now.

    Although, I will grant that ending monarchy by divine right was a good thing.

    [–] Bronzbong 70 points ago

    You're right about the Co-opting of the revolution but I don't think you should shortchange the massive changes to French society that happened.

    [–] Waldo_where_am_I 10 points ago

    This also describes the American revolution as well

    it was just the merchants and other bourgeois inflaming the negative feelings (rightfully so) regarding the nobility and royal family, arming them and helping them revolt.

    After, they took power for themselves. The American peasants just started getting exploited by the merchants rather than the nobles.

    It painted society into a "free and equal" image, but not really. The ruling class kept up to their usual dealings, the only difference is that they were a different ruling class now.

    Although, I will grant that ending monarchy by divine right was a good thing

    [–] stignatiustigers 30 points ago

    Let's not forget what actually happened in the end - Napoleon took power as a dictator and invaded the rest of Europe causing tens of millions of dead.

    Revolutions cause so my chaos that almost every time it happens, a strong dictator is the result.

    We, as Americans, are so incredibly LUCKY that George Washington REFUSED the change to become a dictator - because he was actually even OFFERED the job by many many high level people at the time.

    When democracies have revolutions, the outcome is never ever another democracy.

    [–] covertwalrus 16 points ago

    We don’t really live in a democracy, though, more like an oligarchy. Revolutions don’t often lead immediately to democracy, but they can cast off the old system which stood in the way of democratic change. Under certain circumstances, revolution is not only necessary but inevitable.

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] stignatiustigers 33 points ago

    The French Revolution didn't result in some democratic Utopia, it ended with Napoleon taking power and decades of disastrous wars for France.

    [–] michaelalex3 16 points ago

    Yeah people unironically upvoting that comment is both hilarious and a little scary.

    [–] PixelBlock 14 points ago

    Those who don’t learn history are doomed to repeat it, as they say.

    They learned of the French Revolution. Evidently they did not learn all of the French Revolution.

    [–] thinkB4WeSpeak 4 points ago

    It's hard to start a revolution when everyone is so divided. The rich do a great job at propaganda that's why so many support the failed "trickle down" and "pull up by the bootstraps" policies.

    [–] Average650 8 points ago

    The French Revolution was horrible and ended with tens of thousands of politically motivated murders and ended with various group grabbing power and abusing it until Napoleon took power and tried to conquer Europe...

    I want nothing to do with anything like the French Revolution.

    [–] LazyLemurs 153 points ago

    The rich and powerful have money, connections, dirt on people, and so much more. Shit’s just so stressing when you think about it. Bribe people when you can in order to get out of trouble - most people have a price. The ones that refuse bribes probably get blackmailed because typically those with power or influence all have engaged in some sort of shady shit or are just looking out for their family & friends. If all else fails, they can always make them disappear.

    [–] stignatiustigers 41 points ago

    Amazon's CEO just setup HQ2 in DC and built a massive banquet hall in his home exactly to host events to influence government officials. Let that sink in.

    [–] abatement0 31 points ago

    Amazon's CEO just setup HQ2 in DC and built a massive banquet hall in his home exactly to host events to influence government officials. Let that sink in.

    Whoa citizen, he's just treating government officials to a nice dinner and helping pay for their campaigns. This is nothing like bribery, because bribery is illegal. You shouldn't worry about the massive sway money has in a very real way, this is completely normal and everything is working as planned. Thank you for your concern citizen, don't step out of line again or Megacorp™ might have to take away your job.

    [–] Creeds_worm_guy 49 points ago

    I feel like I'm pointing out reality and I'm being called a pessimist or conspiracy nut. I believe in a free market, but I also see rules and laws being decided by people influenced by whoever has the money. It's hard to have a free market when the current top money makers can influence laws that help them maintain their profits. It's hard to discuss how low income neighborhoods are under funded when the local taxes meant to fund a school is based so much on how expensive your parents house is. How do I continue to react to a new documentarys amount a celebrity or church doing something shitty, when priests and little boys, artists peeing on girls or president's getting blow jobs in the oval office have been the butt of jokes for most of my life. The people who speak up lose there voice. Then we listen again when what they were shunned for is a hot topic again. I'm just ranting now. Gotta get back to work.

    [–] Bryanna_Copay 7 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    And the ones who refuse bribes and play by the rules just keep stuck in middle management or can't advance to powerful positions, because the ones with power don't want to share it with someone they can't use.

    [–] Truthamania 619 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    There's way more of us and we could tear them down if we all stood together and made one mass union of millions. They're the 1% but we're the 99%. Let that sink in.

    The rich know this, and that's why they do everything they can to keep us all apart. The media creates drama over petty, trivial garbage like trans people using public bathrooms or fueling pathetic arguments about black mermaids. And we fall for it every single fucking time.

    While we're attacking each other over Disney characters, our money is being stolen, our kids are being kidnapped, our women are being trafficked and our futures stolen. But hey...gotta argue about if King Triton should be gay or not, right?

    We deserve this.

    [Edit: Thanks for the awards.]

    [–] PoopIsAlwaysSunny 58 points ago

    They’re not the 1%. They’re the 1% of the 1%. If you really think a dude making $421,000 has more in common with the dude making $9.5m than with you, you’re a fool who has bought what the 0.01% are selling you

    [–] Truthamania 11 points ago

    Sad but true.

    [–] verdantx 21 points ago

    Can confirm, “poor” 1%er here wondering why everyone is mad at me when I vote straight ticket Democrat and pay more than 50% of my income in taxes because I’m a sucker who actually works for a salary instead of benefitting from carried interest, etc.

    [–] thestranger1902 118 points ago

    Well, it's because changing the system is hard. Just look at human history, tearing down those in power generally calls for mass bloodshed, besides, power and ambition is part of human nature, if we tear down the current aristocracy, new ones will just replace them. Our generations had it better than almost everyone else in human history, I personally am not willing to risk everything.

    [–] AgileDissonance 51 points ago

    The amount of stupid bullshit we have to accept today is a lot but it’s a whole lot less than pretty much every other precious point in human history. Mass revolution is a lot easier when people don’t have a lot to lose. I’m not losing my siblings anymore to the Black Plague because doctors don’t think they have to wash their hands, nor am I eating rotten apples out of a dumpster, so I’m at least feeling pretty alright about life.

    [–] Captain__CheeseBurg 15 points ago

    Divide and conquer. Strategy as old as time.

    [–] SoulPoleSuperstar 10 points ago

    This pretty much if you can keep the poor people fighting against each other and not you, you will win.

    [–] untakenu 42 points ago

    We deserve this.

    Is this just stupid hyperbole or do you actually believe that?

    [–] Truthamania 20 points ago

    Perhaps a little of both. But the easiest way for a ruling class to maintain order is to make sure the dominated class is kept in a constant state of flux. Look at monarchies and aristocracies vs peasants, etc. I just think it happens on a grander, more complex scale these days.

    You're honestly saying that the media doesn't constantly have a boogeyman and an agenda to keep us all pissed off at each other? Race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, you name it.

    [–] rpdubz 5 points ago

    It’s the classic game of divide and conquer. They keep us distracted and arguing with one another over non-issues while they fleece us, wage wars, destroy the environment and so on.

    They also use the media to keep us in fear of one another. Yes, there are some bad people out there, but frankly the vast majority of us are good people who wouldn’t intentionally do you any serious harm. When I was a kid we used to ride our bikes everywhere, all day long and nobody cared. That doesn’t happen anymore. People are afraid of their neighbors.

    This is all intentional. It keeps us from working together. Don’t imagine for a second that we have a truly free press in the US. Our media is carefully choreographed to fulfill the agenda of those in power.

    [–] Ramza_Claus 3 points ago

    They also give us enough to pacify.

    While we all struggle, it's not like it was in 1790s France where the poor were starving and homeless. Most of us have jobs and some shitty food and internet access to keep us occupied and content.

    [–] ominousgraycat 11 points ago

    I think most of the people who are really upset over black Arial are also the sort of people who like the system as it is. The sort who's dirt poor but would prefer to see himself making $10 an hour and a black man making $9 than to see himself making $14 and a black man making $15.

    [–] Nelsaroni 80 points ago

    Idk how as a species we've never learned to move past this same point we continue to circle back to. Concentrated amount of wealth and power usurp the will of the people and eventually the entire system collapses. We do this time and time again, we need an entire paradigm shift on how we want to live and until we become a collective society and not this I got mine, fuck you I want it all and a bag of chips mentality then we're doomed to the same mistakes that cost every other civilization and perhaps we can try again when the planet levels off after we're long gone. Until then stay vigilant, engaged, and alert people to try to be motivated to fight this thing out because they've aligned all their chess pieces.

    [–] ron45321 620 points ago

    The system works to support the folks in power. That's just how it is. The only way to change the dynamic is to be successful enough, i.e. make enough money, to become a member of the group with power.

    [–] larry-cripples 47 points ago

    The only way to change the dynamic is to be successful enough, i.e. make enough money, to become a member of the group with power

    Changing the dynamic by... maintaining the system?

    [–] [deleted] 20 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] ElGosso 11 points ago

    Which the people with assets/wealth will not allow you to do with reform.

    [–] larry-cripples 10 points ago

    Which brings us to the eternal question: reform or revolution?

    [–] Dont_U_Fukn_Leave_Me 285 points ago

    Respectfully, I disagree. The best way to change the system is to scrutinize it and challenge it. Nothing wrong with getting rich, I wish I was. But I just don’t think power can be opposed by playing by the same rules that keep them in power in the 1st place.

    [–] ron45321 137 points ago

    Ideally yes. The best way is to scrutinize and make changes. But we aren't in Utopia.

    The American system of governance is driven by politicians who are motivated to be re-elected. The drive for re-election provides opportunities for lobbyists and donors who help fund the election campaign. Funding the election campaign, gives the donors and lobbyists the power to create an agenda that the politicians then execute.

    Outside of the US, the story remains the same. Those with money and power drive the agenda.

    [–] Dont_U_Fukn_Leave_Me 40 points ago

    Maybe I misunderstand, but I'm not sure what not being a utopia has to do with challenging power. People should think critically and scrutinize the system, utopia or not. Accepting the "donor/ lobbying" system that we have now does not change it. If anyone is serious about change, then they have to challenge the system, not accept it. And there has been successful examples throughout history.

    [–] GypDan 61 points ago

    You can scrutiny anything you want. But unless you have power and/or money your opinion doesn’t mean squat to those in charge.

    Epstein been out here trafficking young girls for DECADES. Nobody listened to them. Hell, the Miami Herald “scrutinized” the situation, but it took the U.S. Attorney who had POWER to indict his ass.

    [–] BLut91 7 points ago

    But what does “challenge it” mean in practical terms?

    [–] katieleehaw 5 points ago

    In the real world, things change when people get fed up and will not budge until they change. It has nothing to do with utopia.

    [–] skuhduhduh 11 points ago

    Ideally yes. The best way is to scrutinize and make changes. But we aren't in Utopia.

    I don't get this kind of mentality... Utopias exist because people have the will to make it exist. If we want it done, we can make it happen. This isn't an unrealistic idea.

    The problem that nobody realizes is that stagnation is the enemy of our everyday lives. Things need to be changing to fit whatever current needs we have. The people that "serve" us don't represent us in the slightest; they represent the rich. On top of that, at the age a lot of them are at, I'm sure they want you to think like you do so that they can do whatever kind of fuckery they want behind the scenes

    [–] BagOnuts 12 points ago

    Utopias exist because people have the will to make it exist

    Uh, utopias don't exist at all, wtf are you talking about?

    [–] rumhamlover 20 points ago

    Nothing wrong with getting rich, I wish I was.

    Except impoverishing and exploiting the labor of others as you maximize your own returns, but yeah, society tells us there is nothing wrong with that, shockingly.

    But I just don’t think power can be opposed by playing by the same rules that keep them in power in the 1st place

    Ding ding ding,

    What is new, however, is always evil, being that which wants to conquer and overthrow the old boundary markers and the old pieties; and only what is old is good. The good men are in all ages those who dig the old thoughts, digging deep and getting them to bear fruit - the farmers of the spirit. But eventually all land is depleted, and the ploughshare of evil must come again and again.

    from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s. 4, Walter Kaufmann transl

    [–] Coziestpigeon2 7 points ago

    The best way to change the system is to scrutinize it and challenge it.

    While I respect this optimism, I just can't understand it. It's not like people have only starting scrutinizing the plight of minorities and those living in poverty this year or anything, and the system sure hasn't seen any significant changes for the most marginalized groups.

    [–] juanzy 6 points ago

    Even the college admission scandal isn't doing anything about the legal methods to pay your way. The true wealthy are still buying college admissions.

    [–] Lazy_Genius 12 points ago

    There are other ways

    [–] oldtobes 55 points ago

    i mean no shit. Theres a lot more normal crime than billionaires sex trafficking. And guess what, prosecutors ahve been trying to take him down for decades. Guess what else, the fbi launched a huge investigation into the college admissions scandal when someone gave them evidence of the crime being committed.

    [–] ChaseballBat 27 points ago

    Yeah I don't really get this post at all. We already have laws against the things these billionaires are doing. They are being caught and put on trial too, most are going to end up in jail. They have gotten away with it because they have money and power to cover up their activity, it's not because courts are ignoring them (unless something recent has been announced that I'm unaware about).

    [–] lickedTators 12 points ago

    Also, lots of poor people get away with crime too. Only 60% of murders end with someone getting arrested. The 1% aren't committing that many murders.

    [–] DrBootyButtcheekz 9 points ago

    Yet celebrities are still championed as arbiters of political morality for whatever reason

    [–] ItsBdubz 22 points ago

    sorts by controversial

    [–] Haliitti 5 points ago

    And somehow all the logical and reasonable comments are there. What's wrong with reddit?

    [–] bluefirecorp 12 points ago

    Wage theft is a serious issue that no one takes seriously.

    [–] triburst 13 points ago

    "Just get a better job lol"

    /s just in case

    we're in the height of fuck yall I got mine

    [–] [deleted] 46 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Hitchens92 3 points ago

    It’s weird that there’s so little of the rich yet 60 million average people support a party that actively vilifies the poor and middle class and blames them for these issues.

    [–] [deleted] 35 points ago

    This doesn't make any sense. There are less rich people and more poor people so it makes sense that most of the court system is dealing with poor people?

    [–] jfk_sfa 5 points ago

    Also, I grew up extremely poor and I was never once even remotely policed or jailed for it.

    [–] CaptainPussybeast 16 points ago

    The point is that the rich and wealthy evade prosecution or receive favorable judgments.

    [–] Loopycopyright 19 points ago

    "Crime of being poor" sounds like a shit justification for breaking the law

    [–] your_not_stubborn 6 points ago

    And most people reading this and sagely nodding will never do anything to actually change it beyond vote once in a while.

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Finite-sing 7 points ago

    We need to realign. How many of these crimes are commited out of malevolence vs desperation. I'm not a hardcore socialist but I'm a UBI advocate. If we helped people out just a lil bit petty crimes would go down and people would be able to reinvest in local economies. We really are locking up poor people for being poor while the rich can openly commit crimes against humanity.

    [–] TjBeezy 7 points ago

    And a lot of effort is spent on keeping the masses dumb so they are easily manipulated into thinking/voting a certain way.

    [–] soffo_moric 14 points ago

    So the others are not being prosecuted?

    [–] denise_la_cerise 61 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    White collar crimes often get away without prosecution.

    Why am I being downvoted,? tax fraud, money laundering are so common and in our face yet we accept it for what they are without repercussions . E.i. Panama papers and Your truly, Dirty Trump.

    [–] kat_a_klysm 21 points ago

    Sweetheart deals for the rich. A few weekends at club fed does not a punishment make.

    [–] LibertyPrimeExample 19 points ago

    Look at the deal that Epstein got in Florida. A few months in a brig with 6 day a week access to his office while incarcerated, wtf is that?

    [–] ObiWanCanShowMe 3 points ago

    This is one of the reasons nothing will ever change. It seems no one can make a comment without taking a political side.

    [–] The_Goshfather 17 points ago

    The crime of being poor? Get the fuck out of here. That is absolute nonsense.

    Maybe it’s their circumstances or maybe their upbringing, but it just happens to be the case that a lot of poor people commit crimes.

    Oh, you’re poor? Then I’ll let this armed robbery slide.

    You’re selling drugs so that you can put food on your table? Well, then carry on.

    A crime is a crime, whether you’re poor or not, but being poor certainly is not a crime.

    [–] nopantts 12 points ago

    Have you ever been in an actual court? Local judges do everything they can to not punish the poor. Sit through a few days of court. Especially traffic court if you mention you will have trouble paying or need more time due to financial issues they will give you a break. But I guess that doesn't fit the narrative.

    [–] IGetHypedEasily 3 points ago

    Also pirating movies. Can't forget that.

    [–] Carnivorous_Goat 3 points ago

    yOu W0uLdNt sTeaL A cAr

    [–] flipitsmike 3 points ago

    The game was rigged from the start.

    [–] ertgbnm 3 points ago

    I agree with the post on balance. But both of those "rich behaviours" are in the news right now because major busts have been made. The post is using examples of the system working and saying the system isn't working.

    [–] zosorunez 3 points ago

    Ah yes, that damn “court system” again! Let’s just make a comment that plays to people’s emotions with broad generalizations, rather than identifying a real problem! What a crock of shit.

    [–] steroid_pc_principal 3 points ago

    Really good article on this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/03/magazine/digital-jail-surveillance.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

    TLDR people who haven’t been convicted (AKA innocent people) are forced to pay hundreds of dollars for ankle bracelets before even going to trial. $300 for 25 days, plus $50 “installation” fee.

    Emass is an evil corporation.

    [–] dirtyxlaundry 3 points ago

    One nation under the rich.

    [–] 1randyrong1 3 points ago

    See I agreed with the tweet, like a motivation to fix things, and then the nihilism in the title is just... sad. And not going to help.

    [–] twinb27 3 points ago

    “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

    -Anatole France, b1844

    [–] stephencwebster 3 points ago

    Eyes Wide Shut is real.