Revisiting and damn I made a good call to turn off notifications.
My visionary foresight knows no limits
Coward.
Most of the -ism’s get you here. The only one that doesn’t: Peppa Pigism
‘Isms’, what does that word mean?
Words with the -ism suffix. Like capitalism, authoritarianism, veganism, etc.
So, no named ideas? Only deluzean thought-soup?
Is it cool if im super neitzchean about it, since that doesnt end in ‘ism’?
What about ideas from stirnerism?
Anybody who uses “literally” to mean anything but “literally”: a) needs to be caned, b) literally has no valuable opinions.
As someone who studies the english language, No ❤️
So leftism is about wanting more comfortable public benches for the homeless to sleep on, while liberalism is about not wanting people to be homeless at all?
Do you ever get tired of needing to be outraged by everything all of the time and just want to be in a society where people actually work to improve things rather than just expressing impotent outrage? Ah but that would require doing work and leftists don’t want to do any work or they might be screamed at by other leftists for being “liberal.”
Fuck you.
LOL
You didn’t need to write that, everyone already knew you were a douche.
LMAO
https://apnews.com/article/california-newsom-homeless-61ebe5b2a732323989c8885899f8d929
For anyone saying that the democrats are bad for the homeless, please look at this.
Wow. I remember the way the right wing propaganda machine tried to spin that into a story of total cruelty. At the time, I assumed their version of events was bs, but never really looked into what the dem’s were actually doing. Converting old motels into homes for homeless people is an absolute no-brainer.
Ok, but the people at Covenant House aren’t the ones who decided to put the anti-homeless architecture in place.
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters where they might get help finding affordable housing, not to mention help for whatever issues they have going on in their lives. It’s meant to combat the problem of some homeless people choosing to avoid getting help and continue to bury themselves in drugs/alcohol and sleep on things like public benches, where they prevent other people from using them for their intended purpose.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting people to get the help they need and stop being an inconvenience for the rest of their community. Are you against homeless outreach programs too? Do you think people should just be allowed to set up shack wherever they please in public spaces? I’m not trying to pretend that the lack of affordable housing isn’t at the core of the problem, but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street, just to avoid social workers pressuring them to address their problems.
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters
Umm no… anti-homeless architecture isn’t meant to encourage people to go to homeless shelters, it’s meant to make it inconvenient to be homeless where “rich people” might have to see and acknowledge you. Its goal is to make the problem easier to ignore not drive people to get help.
Shelters, even if there was enough space, can be dangerous for vulnerable people, do not allow pets, and rarely provide medium term housing or transitional opportunity.
Anti-homeless architecture simply attempts to push the houseless further away from urban centers, and consequently food kitchens, shelters, and other resources. This is deadly when extreme weather occurs or acute health problems arise.
It actively makes the city more dangerous to those most fucked by society.
As far as “wanting” to live on the street, this is a narrative made up to victim blame and deny empathy. It only needs one or two examples for the false narrative to be cast on the population writ large.
You’re stupid if you think this is the effect anti-homeless architecture is having in the places it’s being implemented. They have very little impact to begin with. I don’t pretend to think that shelters can’t be improved, but if people refuse to utilize the resources we have, we must either come up with new resources or reevaluate our investments in the resources we currently employ.
Hey maybe I’m stupid too, but it seems to me it’d be way fucking easier and cheaper to just put some flyers in a little letterbox attached to the bench advertising the nearest homeless shelter or something, rather than inconveniencing literally everyone who wants to use the bench. But what do I know, I’m probably just stupid
Flyers wouldn’t prevent homeless people from using the bench as a bed, preventing other people from using it for its intended purpose, and would be almost entirely ignored.
Literally anyone using the bench potentially prevents someone else from also using the bench. Why is it a bigger deal when it’s a homeless person doing the using? Also, I’m sure there are other more attention grabbing options than a flyer, if we use our imaginations a little bit. Why is your focus on prevention and not education/outreach anyways?
Literally anyone using the bench potentially prevents someone else from also using the bench. Why is it a bigger deal when it’s a homeless person doing the using?
If the homeless person was just sitting on the bench, it wouldn’t be an issue. The bench features we’re talking about aren’t designed to prevent people from sitting on them; they’re designed to prevent people from lying down on them comfortably, thereby taking up more space and using the bench for a purpose it was not intended.
You chided me for calling someone else stupid, so I’m trying to be nicer, but I honestly don’t feel like I should have to explain this to you.
Why is your focus on prevention and not education/outreach anyways?
As I’ve said in other comments, I support outreach attempts as well. My focus is on this prevention technique because it’s the topic of the thread.
Imagine trying to spin anti-homeless architecture as pro-homeless.
but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street
How about we get there first and then you can hand wring about any of these supposed people who are left?
Most charities are just scams. And yeah they might do some good, but charity is a symptom of failure. We are byproduct of our environment.
Why is this stuff being blamed on liberals and not conservatives all of a sudden? I feel like Trump and the right really succeeded in making you all hate each other while they run off with the country.
In my country at least the conservatives pull this shit, and if anything the liberals go to the other extreme too much, which is “just let homeless people make shanty towns in parks and subways it’s their right” both are stupid but one is very clearly worse in a mora sense
In leftist spaces, the word liberal often has a different connotation more focused on economic liberalism.
They don’t usually feel the need to clarify, and everyone gets mad. It must be incredibly fun to be an asshole these days.
By your logic, anyone from Australia would say the literal exact opposite. Let’s not forget what Liberal parties around the world are like.
That being said, in the US there are no elected center left candidates except maybe two or three. Elected Democrats—liberals, usually—are just as traitor lunatic as right wingers when it comes to anti homeless designs.
The fact that you talk about “the other extreme” without even a hint of self reflection is troublesome at best. The other “extreme” is called housing, son.
Did an American just question my logic? You guys are kinda deranged and politically toxic
I’ll spell it out for you so you can join in on enjoying why your comment was particularly hilarious. You created the very narrow spectrum this post was made to ridicule: from far right (“conservative”) to right wing (“liberal”). You never even considered that it is only right wing to refuse to provide housing for people!
Conservatives wouldn’t build the bench.
Free public spaces don’t encourage people to go in to a shop hard enough. You wanna sit down? Starbucks has chairs. Want a sip of water, go buy a bottle.
A liberal didn’t build that bench.
What makes you think that? Do these not exist in blue states?
Because that bench was deliberately designed to discourage people from sitting there. To make people miserable. So which political party LOVES to be pointlessly cruel?
Both? 17.8 billion dollars to murder children with seems pretty pointlessly cruel to me. All jokes aside, are you not seeing these in the blue states? They don’t have these in New York? Or are you saying conservatives are sneaking in and building these when the democrats aren’t watching?
How is this liberalism?
Liberalism is a political-economic ideology that gives a friendly face to capitalism. While market discipline enforces inhumane measures like a park bench that prevents homeless people from sleeping on it, simultaneously the same society produces the friendly face “solution” of a small, overburdened charity organization to help homeless people.
So the state, which has the authority to enforce public park design, or, you know, regulate housing, won’t help. The liberal solution to systemic social inequity is charity.
