this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
19 points (64.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

47405 readers
1662 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 12 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

in your fantasy world where cops don’t exist, who intervenes when someone inevitably commits a crime?

Who intervenes when cops are around, though? I've been laughed at in my face and told they couldn't do anything despite us having proof in the form of a brick through our window. Not even the restraining order was honored.

Or how about the time I got beat up and all they did was allegedly take some notes and tell me they couldn't do anything because it was private property despite my fresh bruises?

Or them cat-calling a 15 year-old that they're supposed to be protecting?

Kind of useless if you ask me, and I haven't even gotten to the malicious stuff like locking up my brother in law for a year and pressuring for ransom and sacking his family's home.

It's kind of insane how much we rely on their image rather than their direct actions to even dare be so condescending.

[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

All of those instances are examples of either cops not doing their jobs or the law being imperfect. Problems like that will always exist but that just means we need to focus on fixing them, by changing laws and instituting better systems for policing the police. Getting rid of police as an institution is pointless and fixes nothing.

I agree we need reforms in both law and police departments, as well as a better institution than “Internal Affairs” to keep cops in line. More essentially, we need to change the cultural problem at the heart of police corruption. Regular psychological evaluations, deescalation training, and an active stance against authoritarian personalities in police need to be adopted.

[–] kugel7c@feddit.org 3 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Cops are a few hundert years old concept why would they be necessary now when most places they barely existed pre ww1.

Your second paragraph is just as pie in the sky as abolishing, specifically because as with every position entailing power over others, authoritarians will flock to it.

The police was created so that wealth and power can effectively use part of the state for physical protection of their assets and lives, and that is still their operating background, the management of the local meat packing factory or the amazon warehouse will have much greater access to police resources than you or your plumber, by design, the law is imperfect and cops are not doing their job, more or less on purpose. And this status quo will not change unless at least some part of this system is entirely redone.

If the greater context in which the police exists, makes normal people scared of consequences, and powerful people immune to consequences enacted by police, why should any normal person argue for their existence.

[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 1 points 12 minutes ago

Cops are a few hundert years old concept why would they be necessary now when most places they barely existed pre ww1.

LOL, wtf are you smoking, dude? This is why conversations about this topic on Lemmy are so consistently bad; ACAB folks just make shit up. Societies have had police in some form or another since practically the beginning of civilization. And to the extent that they didn’t, crime was up and vigilante justice was the only recourse.

You’re a damn fool, and I don’t take you seriously.

[–] mrbutterscotch@feddit.org 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

So say we abolish the police. What happens when someone has been robbed?

[–] kugel7c@feddit.org 3 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

Either the robbery is severe enough for the person who was robbed to assemble a little group to catch the robber or they just let it slide. If we know some info about the robber we could let any institutions in the surrounding area know that this person is to be exiled or at least that his missteps be brought up before he is again considered to be part of polite society.

Local neighbourhood watch /militias could also exist and take over some of the polices current work especially when it comes to groups of potentially violent perpetrators.

None of this is going to be particularly effective but it's not like currently a robbery, or most other crimes are likely to be effectively prosecuted either so I don't see the big issue.

There are more watertight arguments made by anarchists, syndicalists and the like that you could read and agree or disagree with. But at the end of the day there is little ability for either of us to demonstrate, to me that the police can be fixed with any proposed method, and to you that society without police would work/ be more fair. So ultimately we are not gonna get much further here.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago

the person who was robbed to assemble a little group to catch the robber

Vigilantism isn't the answer ... to anything. It's a romantic idea best consumed in pulp form.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 3 points 4 hours ago

All you have to do is look at how Reddit responded to the guy they thought was the Boston Marathon bomber to know that your idea isn't going to work.

Crowd sourcing law enforcement is a horrible idea.

[–] mrbutterscotch@feddit.org 3 points 7 hours ago

I'll be honest, what you are describing sounds like a return to vigilante justice, which does not sound enticing to me. It sounds like the prelude to Gang/Militia warfare. Organised Crime would thrive in such an environment.

But at the end of the day there is little ability for either of us to demonstrate, to me that the police can be fixed with any proposed method

I'm not intelligent enough to propose solutions for fixing a police force which is highly corrupt. But I feel confident enough to say there are absolutely examples of countries with a functioning/not corrupt police force.

Germany is a very good example of what a good police force can look like. Sure there is always some that have a power trip and abuse their power, but that's something you'll have in any system, a system of vigilante neighborhood/militias included (if not more so). Police in Germany are generally well trained and a boon to society.

None of this is going to be particularly effective but it’s not like currently a robbery, or most other crimes are likely to be effectively prosecuted either so I don’t see the big issue.

Not sure what country you are referring to, but I'll stick with Germany as an example of a functioning police force. In Germany 58% of crimes are solved

And the missing 42% aren't because of police corruption, but due to missing evidence etc.

So I don't believe Police as a concept is outdated, since we need a way to enforce the laws that we as citizens agree on, but rather that the countries that have corruption problems need radical reform.