I'm gonna mute this one
-
Amazingly, you think because someone has a mental illness that they chose to live on the street.
You: "I'm sure if given the chance to have a place to live, an unhoused person would reject it"
They remove benches and rest stops/bus shelters to stop the unhoused from occupying them to the detriment of people using the service. And you see nothing wrong with that.
It's very obvious to most why this is done.
But not you.
Amazingly, you think because someone has a mental illness that they chose to live on the street.
No, I don’t. I’m a therapist that works at a mental health clinic, so I’d wager I have a better understanding of the psychosocial conditions affecting these people than you do. And I know the feeling psychosocial impacts have on the homeless better than you do. I’ve seen and worked with people living on the street. Can you claim to have the same experience?
Jesus Christ, do you even know what you’re talking about?
I’m not going to waste my time with you, because you haven’t demonstrated you have even an inkling of an understanding of what you’re dealing with.
Get educated before you spout off, nitwit.
-
I agree with you that the parties are not the same. The GOP are outright evil puppets of the billionaire class. The Democrats are ineffectual cowards who've made careers out of paying lip service to the right thing, and every now and then doing something helpful if it's convenient for them and doesn't piss off their billionaire donors. A lot of the time that ends up translating to the same results for most people.
I don't buy the "sorry, our hands are tied" line we always get from the left. Dems throw up their hands even when they do have majorities. The first meaningful opportunity the Democrats had to obstruct Trump's agenda, after the left base had been screaming for weeks for their representatives to do something, Schumer rolled over immediately. I can't take this party seriously anymore.
the left
Democrats are definitely not leftist. Center right would be more apt.
-
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!
I feel like this shouldn't have to be explained, but "Both sides bad" does not equal "Both sides equally bad" or "Both sides the same"
There's not a leftist on Lemmy who wouldn't rather be patronized while being stomped on than being cussed at while being murdered.
And yes, I voted. No, it didn't help. It was moderates who didn't vote, not leftists. Leftists believe in harm reduction while advocating for harm elimination- the two goals aren't contradictory. Trump stole the election so it's all pretty much moot anyway.
By focusing on the fact that Democrats version of bad is better than the Republican version of bad, it only helps to ensure that the Democrats are the best we can hope to achieve. There is nothing wrong in wanting actual good and instead of 'least bad'.
-
I agree with you that the parties are not the same. The GOP are outright evil puppets of the billionaire class. The Democrats are ineffectual cowards who've made careers out of paying lip service to the right thing, and every now and then doing something helpful if it's convenient for them and doesn't piss off their billionaire donors. A lot of the time that ends up translating to the same results for most people.
I don't buy the "sorry, our hands are tied" line we always get from the left. Dems throw up their hands even when they do have majorities. The first meaningful opportunity the Democrats had to obstruct Trump's agenda, after the left base had been screaming for weeks for their representatives to do something, Schumer rolled over immediately. I can't take this party seriously anymore.
The dems are not left they are center right. The repubs are far right.
-
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
It would be nice to see shelter and support being provided, rather than a bisected bench designed to discourage the ability to comfortably lie down for a night's rest.
-
the thing about Democrats and 'liberals' is that its a broad coalition of ideologies and political groups competing for power and having to compromise. we all want to bring about our vision of society and help people, but small differences lead to huge schisms. also, monied interests have undue amounts of power over our institutions.
conservatives on the other hand are completely united by cruelty and adherence to rigid heirarchies (in spite of how dysfunctional they are), and basically the only issues they ever have in their own base is that something isn't causing enough pain to people they hate.
i feel it is important to hold our representatives accountable, but saying things like both sides are exactly the same or complaining about liberals as if they are one cohesive entity has no value outside of pushing people away from politics. there are VERY specific people and groups that are making very bad decisions for Americans, like AIPAC or other big donors that simultaneously fund people like Andrew Cuomo and Donald Trump
-
This post did not contain any content.
A liberal didn't build that bench.
-
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.
Imagine trying to spin anti-homeless architecture as pro-homeless.
-
A liberal didn't build that bench.
On the contrary: a leftist didn't build that bench, but it's exactly the sort of thing a liberal would do.
-
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
wrote last edited by [email protected]Instead the message is "no child should ever sleep on the streets. We made it impossible to sleep on this bench because it's for people we want here."
-
Amazingly, you think because someone has a mental illness that they chose to live on the street.
No, I don’t. I’m a therapist that works at a mental health clinic, so I’d wager I have a better understanding of the psychosocial conditions affecting these people than you do. And I know the feeling psychosocial impacts have on the homeless better than you do. I’ve seen and worked with people living on the street. Can you claim to have the same experience?
Jesus Christ, do you even know what you’re talking about?
I’m not going to waste my time with you, because you haven’t demonstrated you have even an inkling of an understanding of what you’re dealing with.
Get educated before you spout off, nitwit.
Get educated before you spout off, nitwit.
Oh, the irony!
You do realize you're just embarrassing yourself all over this thread, right?
-
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
Except for the part where, in reality, they didn't actually do that.
-
It's estimated that 20% (1 in 5) orphans go straight to being homeless at 18. Homelessness is becoming illegal. Banning abortions ups the number of orphans... Which ups the homeless population, which in turn will up the incarceration numbers.
Our plan to fix any of it? To make cuts to social services.
Our plan to fix any of it?
What do you mean, "fix it?" The prison slave labor system is working exactly as intended.
-
And what’s wrong with that? These people should be getting help, not taking up public space. I realize that it probably seems to you like an abuse campaign to insist they sleep somewhere else, but I would argue you’re an enabler who naively thinks they’re helping while actually just cooperating with these poor people’s poor adaptation strategies by giving them a place to stay in public space that isn’t actually a safe to stay in. Check yourself. Do you actually have these people’s best interests in mind, or are you just virtue signaling about the homeless, a class you see as less than yourself?
Why do you believe I see homeless people as less than myself? Quite a lot of people are only a short term breakdown away from being homeless, especially in ultra capitalist places like the US. Certainly they need help, but help is not always directly available, and you want to argue that while they look for help, making the world as hostile as possible is a good thing? And then you try to gaslight me with that? I think you need help.
-
An angle grinder would make short work of those "arm rests."
i doubt they are welded, a wrench or pliers might do
-
Except for the part where, in reality, they didn't actually do that.
My knowledge is limited to a short wikipedia scan, but I didn't see any reason to doubt they do it. Feel free to link some info if you know better.
-
Instead the message is "no child should ever sleep on the streets. We made it impossible to sleep on this bench because it's for people we want here."
So you would prefer that there is no shelter and more benches for homeless children?
I think the message is perfectly clear, and people online are just looking for reasons to be upset (not that they would do something about it, just posting angrily).
-
It would be nice to see shelter and support being provided, rather than a bisected bench designed to discourage the ability to comfortably lie down for a night's rest.
As far as a quick Google search goes, support seems to be provided, they offer 2000 shelter spots across north America.
-
I feel like this shouldn't have to be explained, but "Both sides bad" does not equal "Both sides equally bad" or "Both sides the same"
There's not a leftist on Lemmy who wouldn't rather be patronized while being stomped on than being cussed at while being murdered.
And yes, I voted. No, it didn't help. It was moderates who didn't vote, not leftists. Leftists believe in harm reduction while advocating for harm elimination- the two goals aren't contradictory. Trump stole the election so it's all pretty much moot anyway.
By focusing on the fact that Democrats version of bad is better than the Republican version of bad, it only helps to ensure that the Democrats are the best we can hope to achieve. There is nothing wrong in wanting actual good and instead of 'least bad'.
I don't live in the US so I don't have first hand experience but both on lemmy and on reddit it was mostly leftists who were spamming "genocide Biden (without mentioning that trump was even worse)", something about inflation (like it wasn't a global issue) and other issues where gop is clearly worse. All as a reason to not vote Democrat.
-
I’m frustrated with the reflexive "both sides are equally bad" response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what's actually happening in our politics.
I'm not naive about the Democratic Party's problems. They struggle with internal divisions, sometimes cave to corporate pressure, and they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base. But when I look at voting records, policy proposals, and legislative priorities, I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people's lives.
On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers. The other party doesn’t just oppose these policies, they fight tooth and nail to undermine them, delay them, or dismantle them entirely. That’s not a matter of opinion. That’s a matter of public record.
When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion. Meanwhile, when Republicans have unified control, their priorities have been tax cuts for the wealthy and rolling back environmental protections.
I understand the appeal of cynicism. It can feel sophisticated to dismiss all politicians as equally corrupt. But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.
If you can't tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you're not offering insight. You're providing cover for obstruction.
Does this mean Democrats are perfect? Of course not. Should we hold them accountable when they fall short? Absolutely. But pretending there are no meaningful differences between the parties just because neither is perfect makes it harder to build the coalitions we need to create the change we actually want to see.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I’m frustrated with the reflexive “both sides are equally bad”
No one is saying both sides are equally bad. And we keep saying this over and over, and it gets ignored. Just so were on the same page NO ONE is saying both sides equally bad.
...response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what’s actually happening in our politics.
Ironically it's usually the opposite. Someone will make the lightest possible criticism of Liberals and the knee-jerk reaction to that is "So you think both sides are equally bad?!" That's what usually shuts the conversation down.
sometimes cave to corporate pressure
Try replacing sometimes with "usually". They may be different corps, but almost all of them are in the pocket of one corp or another.
they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base
That's putting it mildly.
I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people’s lives.
Of course, and again literally no one is saying they are equally bad. You can vote for the less bad option while still hoping for meaningful change.
On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers.
It's usually weak, ineffective half-measures more designed to look progressive than actually being progressive, but sure if you compare them to literal Nazi's they are saints.
When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion.
So, just as an example when Obama was president and Dems had the majority in both houses of congress, and Republicans were shitting all over themselves proving that they would not compromise a single inch- instead of passing any type of "Medicare for all" or "Right to Healthcare" they passed the highly compromised "Affordable Care Act". Why? Contrast that fact with this statement from Obama prior to the election.
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program," Obama said. "I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."
Odd that when the Dems had "taken back" the White House and both houses of Congress the best they could do was a watered down and problematic solution that still left a lot of people without health care. It's not like compromising on that gained them a single Republican vote.
"Coincidentally" the Healthcare Industry 'donated' over $20 million to the Obama campaign, way more than even the almost $8 million they 'donated' to John McCain. Very odd indeed.
But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.
I honestly can't think of a single institution anywhere in the world more devoted to maintaining the status quo than the DNC. Not one. They aren't 'progressive' in any way. Obama didn't even come out in support of Gay Marriage until he had been president for over 3 years, and after right wing Democrat Joe Biden already had. This wasn't due to some sense of fairness or equality, it was political pressure.
If you can’t tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you’re not offering insight. You’re providing cover for obstruction
By refusing to even hear about potential failings of 'liberal democrats' without engaging in 'whataboutism', it only strengthens the DNC's position as the 'good guys, fighting for reform' when the reality is they are the 'less bad guys, fighting to maintain the status quo'.
Fascists are bad. We all know they are bad. We all know they are worse than a bunch of corporate stooges who want everyone to be slaves to Capitalism, but at least you can feel good they are doing the bare minimum to address the multitudes of problems in the country.
There is a third option, and there is absolutely noting wrong with pointing out the flaws on both sides of the Two Party system and hoping for a future of 'actually good' instead of 'less bad'. Even if it is just a dream, I'd rather waste my life trying to make those dreams real than throwing my arms up and saying "This is the best we can ever hope for".
