this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
1241 points (97.4% liked)

memes

15986 readers
1833 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Depends on what you mean by "strict". I think the meme is about the parents who get angry over little things but don't actually pay attention to their kids much - the ones who just assume that their kids would not dare to misbehave. However when I was in high school, I also saw plenty of kids (often immigrants) who had successfully been taught to work pretty much non-stop. I think their parents watched them (or at least their grades) closely enough that they couldn't have gotten away with anything. It seemed to work well - they got straight A's, never got in trouble, and went to prestigious universities. I can't think of a single one I knew who burned out or rebelled (while in high school - I don't know what happened to them afterwards). However, the ones I got to meet were already filtered, with the low- and medium-achievers not admitted to that school.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, it is about the ones that keep an eye on their kids at all time.

The kids are unable to do anything unless they find way to circumvent all that bigbrothering.

And if they need to lie constantly, they will gain experience in it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 days ago

Strict for strict's sake is bullshit. Holding your kids accountable for their actions, enforcing boundaries, and channeling their energy into productive ventures might be considered strict, but that's good parenting in my book.

[–] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

I've become so used to it that now I lie to any sort of authority figure or any authority adjacent figure out of habit.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

They're not unlike law enforcement, in that regard.


Unrelated (probably), but i just researched this and want to tell people:

  • The US Army & National Guard has a combined troop strength of around 1 Million soldiers. source They are typically under federal control or can be "activated" (in the case of the National Guard) to be put under federal control.
  • The US has a total number of police officers & law enforcement of, also, around 1 Million. source Most of them are under state & local control.

I'm saying this because i have been wondering, in case states try to secede and trump sends all troops he commands to the states to stop them from doing so, what would be the likely outcome.

Sorry, it's a bit off-topic here, but the US situation is on my mind a lot these days.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Depends on how many states we're talking about and their geographic distribution. 1M isn't enough to hold the whole country. It probably can't even hold New York City. It could probably hold New Hampshire.

Current US military doctrine suggests you need 1 soldier for every 3 people you're trying to occupy. This is especially true when you have to assume every civilian is a potentially armed insurrectionist, and the US has a lot of guns in civilian hands. That said, fascists tend to throw out hard won wisdom like this, and tells the army they aren't trying hard enough. For as much as they drone on about how they're a bunch of tough guys, they are complete shit at actually fighting a war. Here's a former US Army intelligence officer talking about the numbers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyBIqRunQ5Y

Oh, and while the existing military might follow orders to take over states "in rebellion", they're going to be doing a lot of malicious compliance. The way they did Trump's birthday parade proves it. They 100% phoned it in on purpose.

One of the side effects of Trump trying to move so fast is that he doesn't have time to purge the military and refill it with loyalists. That would take over a decade. Stalin did that to disastrous effect; the Winter War was only a technical win with catastrophic losses, and the later German invasion was barely held back. Hitler didn't really try to purge the Wehrmacht, with the Night of the Long Knives being mostly a purge of their own SS people.

Trump therefore has to rely on already loyal people with guns, which is mostly ICE, local sheriffs, and police. None of them are big enough to hold the whole country, either, or even a major state.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AmazingAwesomator@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

looks like strict parents are the way to fit into the corporate world :p

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

I mean, I know plenty of kids who learned this without strict parents. School staff, daycare workers, business managers, cops... anyone in authority looking to impose rules also taught these lessons.

You'd think nobody on this sub has ever shoplifted before, ffs.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›