this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026
287 points (97.7% liked)

Greentext

7895 readers
554 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works
287
Anon is a Japanese peasant (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 days ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lasta@piefed.world 165 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

Context:

Tsujigiri (辻斬り or 辻斬, literally "crossroads killing") is a Japanese term for a practice when a samurai, after receiving a new katana or developing a new fighting style or weapon, tests its effectiveness by attacking a human opponent, usually a random defenseless passer-by, in many cases during night time. The practitioners themselves are also referred to as tsujigiri.

The act of tsujigiri against defenceless civilians was widely and socially condemned as immoral, cowardly, and associated with rogue samurais and bandits, and was not considered common or respectable samurai practice. It was made a capital offence by law in 1602 by the Edo government.

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 70 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's some serial killer shit.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 47 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well, yeah, they're samurai

Medieval European knights weren't much better either.

Turns out the rich and powerful have always been assholes

[–] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 27 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

They were basically the medieval version of cops. We're still trying to figure out how to give people the power to protect others without giving them the power to abuse others to this very day.

The trouble is that there seems to be a very blurry line between the two on both an institutional and internal psychological level. To quote Twitter user @meganamram (from before it for completely fucked as a website): "You can’t be nice to everyone because being nice to certain people is inherently cruel to others." For every case that appears to be an obvious case of good versus evil there's fifty more that are weird muddy bullshit where there's no winner and the closest you'll ever get to justice is deciding who should lose harder.

And unfortunately the loser usually just defaults to whoever doesn't go to church with the cop, which was probably also true in medieval times.

[–] baines@lemmy.cafe 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

we’re really not, the answer is sunshine laws

problem is helping non-rich people has never been the point

[–] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

This is a good answer, one of the best even, but I would argue it still lacks the necessary nuance.

As an example I'm more personally familiar with I think one of the things that would help human services be more... well. humane, is if more people were encouraged to get involved and actually witness the realities are of some of these people's daily lives but also you have to pick at what point you protect people's privacy.

I have several patients who will literally physically fight tooth and nail to be left in their own bodily fluids long enough to cause chemical burns and I really wish more people understood what both the person and everyone in their immediate vicinity is going through, but also idk if it would be really fair to them to let just anybody watch them play in their own poo. But it can also be violent (I've been straight up swung on) and someone should be out there making sure people are reacting to that as safely as possible.

Our hospital security actually do have bodycams now that they have to turn on during codes and it's easy to say those should be auditable by anyone except a few months ago we had a pt yank their pants down during a code and run screaming at the officer. People shouldn't just be able to look up the video of that person's junk from when they were sick.

...and I'm sure in law enforcement powerful people would love to punish someone for speaking up by aggressively publicizing intricate details of their victimization. Or even to intentionally victimize someone with the goal of publicizing some part of their life. In fact the purpose of HIPAA isn't actually privacy, the true purpose is to make your own records available to you. The privacy thing is just an extension of it needed to keep the organization from retaliating by making the documents you request public.

There's no one law that will ever fix anything. They'll have to be continually updated as shitty people find workarounds. There's never going to be a right answer that doesn't involve a continuing supply of fucks given by people who have at least the barest sembalance of altruism. Unfortunately the fucks to give economy is not primarily motivated by altruism.

[–] baines@lemmy.cafe 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

even with sunshine laws in place, review is generally limited much like foia requests

abuse is possible but you can’t pre legislate that entirely away

and for sure an educated involved populace is needed, unfortunately that is the nature of all politics/reform etc

to your first point i agree, well meaning noble savage stereotypes can be as damaging to resolving problems as spiteful biggotry

i have no medical experience but ive seen this first hand with serving the homeless population

leadership and rule makers should have to actually do the rounds of any job they are legislating but that’s hard work and little money when running for office to take bribes is so much more lucrative

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

We're still trying to figure out how to give people the power to protect others without giving them the power to abuse others to this very day.

That gives me an idea. If we already have body cams, why not take it a step further and have them transmit in real time to a civilian oversight representative? Maybe give the rep the ability to lock down the gun remotely if it's obvious there's no real danger. No signal, no functioning gun. The idea was explored in Psycho-pass and it seems like a decent balance of power and restraint.

If a cop objects to the idea then you know it would likely go in the right direction.

[–] other_cat@piefed.zip 6 points 1 day ago

If memory serves, the whole psycho-pass system was. Uh. Flawed.

[–] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Gun should be locked down by default unless the observers ok it.

[–] Arcadeep@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I think this happened in The Watchmen series

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

That's what I said.

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

how to give people the power to protect others without giving them the power to abuse

Police are by their nature a gang who are paid off for protection from other gangs. They likewise consist of people who sell their muscle and weapon skills, for the absence of other skills to sell.

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

辻斬り or 辻斬, literally "crossroads killing"

So either ‘crossroads killing’ or ‘crossroads killing and a swirl’.

[–] mech@feddit.org 20 points 2 days ago (3 children)

It was made a capital offence by law in 1602 by the Edo government.

Previous laws regarding murder didn't cover it?

[–] baguettefish@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

samurai sometimes owned land and were part of the aristocracy, at the very least being retainers of lords and thus being a more privileged class and caste.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

And furthermore, this is feudalism, a political and economic system defined by rigid social hierarchy crafted under a might makes right framework. The peasant class was generally considered disposable. Like, you can't kill too many, and crap like this is considered bad form, but if you're a samurai/knight the people with the power to enforce laws see you as one of them and the people with power over them see you as simply more valuable given that you're a serious investment in training and equipment while they're primarily manual laborers who replace themselves and produce the food they consume. But more than that they're so far beneath them socially that their individual humanity is invisible.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 8 points 2 days ago

Laws for thee not for me

[–] Uruanna@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Before that was the warring period. So effectively no.

[–] KurtVonnegut@mander.xyz 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

辻 literally looks like a cross with roads.

[–] TwilightKiddy@programming.dev 6 points 2 days ago

辶 has a meaning "road" and 十 is "ten". In Japanese you'd say "jyuuji" if you want to refer to the cross shape, written "十字", literally "ten character". Kanji, despite being a semantic writing system, often will not have such a clean breakdown by radicals, but this time everything checks out.

[–] starik@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago

Assholes

[–] Apeman42@lemmy.world 43 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Something about the expression and composition on that little Pepe comic reminds me of old Mad magazines.

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I have to wonder if the pic is made by AI, because it's fascinating to me that some people keep cranking out elaborate Pepe images. Shitposting in text is easy, drawing not so much.

The OP image is rather low-res, but I don't see any particularly obvious bullshit in the Pepe pic. Other than the fact that drawing full five fingers is unusual for a comic.

[–] frog@feddit.uk 10 points 2 days ago

Lol. Spy vs Spy maybe?