I'm gonna mute this one
-
Working class: "Can we have meaningful reform?"
Conservatives: "No."
Liberals: "No
"wrote last edited by [email protected]Most of the Democrats in Congress are hardly liberal
-
This post did not contain any content.
Ok, but the people at Covenant House aren't the ones who decided to put the anti-homeless architecture in place.
-
Most of the Democrats in Congress are hardly liberal
Leftist. Liberalism is a right wing ideology.
-
Ooof that fact that you think the "gulf is not meaningful" is insane.
I mean JFC, are you blind or a troll? I don't even have enough time to list the Nazi level illegal and democracy ending shit Trump is doing right now.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Lol, I have two degrees in studying this, and I'm old enough to have seen the full cycle play out a few times for both sides. I'm not trolling, I'm jaded AF. And I'm taking about what either party does as a party line. Orange Bully is obviously different, but it's an individual thing, nothing the party itself has accomplished or done.
Look, if the difference was so vast, ask yourself why Schumer and all the other 70+ year old Dems seem hellbent on laying low and doing nothing but maintain their own power? Maybe get a couple seats in 2026? That's not resistance. That's capitulation. Not even strategic capitulation, simply consent and wishes for crumbs. The same thing the alt-right does because TACO boy always chickens out when it comes to a "crossing the Rubicon" style move.
Political parties only exist to enrich and entrench politicians in the party. They are unions for politicians, with no benefits passed to the voters unless it first benefits the politicians. Open your eyes. If you think either party is so noble and steadfast and true, ask yourself where, in a time of need, they are.
Edit: I'm a privacy advocate, and so you have shit like this: https://lemmy.today/post/31901334. While on the other side, journalist Taylor Lorenz has repeatedly mentioned that during a social media influencer event the Biden White House held, they pushed for the idea of "unmasking internet trolls," which by default means knowing who everyone is online. (The most recent episode of Power User mentions it again) This, the slow deterioration from a few Senators in 2017-18 trying for an internet bill of rights, down to not a bill but...principles, down to privacy as a consumer right, down to F it we need tech bro money too so scrap it all and let's support Digital IDs now (https://www.meritalk.com/articles/congress-warms-to-digital-ids-as-fraud-privacy-concerns-grow/)
Plenty of examples of both parties having incredibly similar implementations of two different sounding policy goals. Which is fascinating to read about, but a terrifying place in which to live.
-
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 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.
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?
-
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.
That may be true in some cases but most of the time anti homeless street furniture is just made to get homeless people to not hang around that particular area.
-
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.
Fuck you.
-
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.
-
This is not literally liberalism lmao
Every "liberal" city that I've lived in has had these, or a variant. So I'd have to say yes, it is liberalism in action
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
An angle grinder would make short work of those "arm rests."
-
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.
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.
-
Working class: "Can we have meaningful reform?"
Conservatives: "No."
Liberals: "No
"Correction,
liberals: "
No" -
This post did not contain any content.
Yankee woke neo_Liberalism is stupidity trying to look good with little to no oversight. Yankee Conservatism is bitches runing wild.
-
Ok, but the people at Covenant House aren't the ones who decided to put the anti-homeless architecture in place.
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.
-
An angle grinder would make short work of those "arm rests."
I wouldn't damage public property. You certainly can improve on it. A couple of weather treated 2x4s would raise the seat up, just high enough to clear the armrests. You wouldn't draw attention to yourself while grinding, but instead it would look super clean and nobody would report it.
-
Working class: "Can we have meaningful reform?"
Conservatives: "No."
Liberals: "No
"Conservatives: "No. Kill the trans people and put gays in jail. Women belong in the kitchen. "
Liberals: "No
"Lemmy: both said no, so they're the same!
-
"No kid should ever have to sleep on the streets, so we made it borderline impossible for them to physically do so. Hopefully their bootstraps figure out someplace they can sleep, because we sure as hell didn't. You're welcome."
It's more like "no kid should ever sleep on the streets so we provide them with shelter and support", but that doesn't make a good internet rant m
-
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?
Nah, because these people are always going to be here. Do you have a better solution or are you just hand-wringing about people you don’t have to deal with in your daily life?
