They keep dealing with the symptoms of the problem but never the root of the problem.
Namely the weak, cowardly, ignorant, parasitic minority of wealthy idiots that want to horde the wealth of the world for their own short insignificant lives.
The 90s in the USA were a simpler time, but some folks got it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs-O4k9jZzE
Bulldoze the community garden
And replace it with glassClosing Down The Park
Blues Traveler
12:55
You should really read the politics section for John Popper’s Wikipedia page.
Oh… Oh no… Really?
Edit: I could have lived with it except for endorsing gwb. You don’t get to call yourself a libertarian and sign off on gitmo and patriot act. Those are like the difference between being problematic but principled ass and just an ass.
It doesn’t really say too much damming. You can be socially libertarian and economically left and still be a good person.
You have to remember that the democrats shot themselves in the foot with the entire rock industry when Tipper Gore waged christian housewife war on them.
I’m currently on vacation in California at an outdoor mall. I’m squat/sitting on a tiny piece of concrete that’s like 8” off the ground and am so mad that I can relate to this picture. Why the fuck can’t we just have benches!?!
Because poor people might use them, so fuck you pleb.
That would provide homeless people with 1 possible point of comfort, can’t have that.
Well duh. If people start gathering in public and talking to each other with a modicum of comfort, they might get thoughts in their heads
That’s why Putin made public gatherings illegal
It’s kind of crazy how swiftly Occupy was wiped off the zeitgeist. A key cultural event of the 2010s gone as if it never happened.
Far more often than not, even bloody revolutions do not achieve their goals, or lead to merely cosmetic and/ or short-lived changes. E.g. Kent Gang Deng investigated 269 major peasant rebellions over 2106 years of Chinese history. Guess how many of these actually rewrote history in any way, shape or form.
Recently, I’ve been reading several interesting pieces on the “Occupy” movement, the related G20 and other protests in the Western world, dating back as far as the 1960s. The bottom line being: asking nicely for some minimum demands that even conservative politicians can get behind, like capping CEOs’ wages, will not get the job done. In fact, some of the powers that be can use it for their internal power struggles and to show it off as a sort of legitimization folklore. “See how democratic we are? We even have protesters in little tents! Don’t worry, they aren’t hurting anyone.”
All hope is not lost, though, if new protest modalities can be found.At this point the only valid forms of protesting are basically doxxing the billionaires and gathering outside their homes. Only problem is you’ll be at the gate of an estate thats empty half the time.
And thoughts lead to actions!
And you know what’s an action? Addressing the wage gap!
We must stop that!
Which is why we need a world where people are constantly being forced to move and never allowed to ever stop moving, for fear that they may some day stop and think.
To add another layer: allowing homelessness is one of the most widespread and visible acts of violence perpetrated by the state, supported by the market, and accepted-- or at least tolerated-- by most of the public. I wonder if institutions don’t address it because scares people into obedience.
Reflect on the focus of violence in stories about slavery. Hypothetically, without violence, slavery is still awful: robbing a human of their autonomy, spending their lives bettering the lot of those in power rather than their own. But we focus on the violence, not only because of the obvious, visible horror, but because you can’t rob someone of their autonomy without violence.
When it comes to homelessness, the violent act is not only inaction: failing to address risks and pitfalls, or add safety nets (focusing on growth, instead), but also what your original post is about: removing public facilities, forcing people to play the line-go-up game in order to have nice things, lest they have a string of bad luck and end up on the street, exposed to the elements.
The state and market didn’t cause the blizzard that may kill unhoused people, but they did nothing to try to get them out of its path. Isn’t that the purpose of these institutions? Yet homelessness is everywhere and it makes being unemployed all the more terrifying-- to be that much closer to the streets. “Better to take what you can get,” participate in an unjust market or it could be you.
Rather than just help them (which is cheaper btw) they take services away from everyone in an attempt to make their area shitty enough they’ll go somewhere else…
Completely ignoring that they’re making it shitty for the people they want to keep too, which makes people want to leave and depressed selling prices, which can easily lead to a panic and flight from an area destroying the community.
Even from a purely selfish capitalistic perspective, it’s best to just have a fucking safety net. Beyond all the ethical reasons we should, there’s not a single logical reason not to fucking help people.
But have you considered that maybe my good and just God has given me a mission to make everyone else suffer?
I’m sure it’s written somewhere in the bible. Idk I’ve never read it.
Neither have most Christians.
The problem is that when you do help people, more people keep showing up who want help too. There’s a good reason why a couple hundred thousand migrants have come to NYC (where I live) and that isn’t because there’s no “fucking safety net”. Frankly, I want less of a safety net here so that these people leave and the rest of the country has to do its share. I feel absolutely no guilt saying that I want either those benches a person can’t lie down on or no benches at all in the public areas I go to.
There are help-the-homeless-even-more advocates in NYC so I’m not saying everyone is a hypocrite, but I expect that the overlap between “complains about measures to deter homeless people” and “lives in a neighborhood with a lot of homeless people” is small.
You’re pathetic. I hope that if you ever need help, you never get it either. Absolutely pitiful.
“Pitiful” implies that people would have sympathy for me. I think the word “despicable” might better express what you intend.
No, pitiful is exactly what I intend. I feel very bad for people like you.
There’s always some place that’s worse. What you’re arguing for here is a race to the bottom, where everyone tries to be worse than their neighbours in order to get the undesirables to go there instead.
In essentially “the tragedy of the commons” but in an opposite sense. If everyone gets worse in an attempt to get rid of “undesirables”, you just end up with everywhere being worse, and the “undesirables” still being around. What we need is for everyone to build safety nets together. That might actually improve the situation.
I recognize that this is a tragedy-of-the-commons scenario (although if everywhere is worse then at least people will stop coming from other countries to be homeless in the USA) but local action can’t prevent the race. It can only determine winners and losers.
Nobody is coming to the US to be homeless. That’s not a thing.
We’re shitty enough to our own citizens to make plenty of our own folk homeless.
You are closer to living on the street than you realize.
Nobody is coming to the US to be homeless. That’s not a thing.
They don’t intend to stay homeless permanently, but they come with no money and use the social services available to homeless people.
We’re shitty enough to our own citizens to make plenty of our own folk homeless.
There are many hard-working poor people who experience temporary housing insecurity, but they’re not the ones living on the street long-term. The ones who are usually have serious mental problems that make becoming a productive member of even the most generous society very unlikely. (They’ll also often refuse to go to a shelter because they won’t be allowed to do drugs there.)
You are closer to living on the street than you realize.
My family was poor when I was a child, although government assistance made it possible for us to pay for a place to live. (Note that I am not opposed to all government assistance.) We were close to homelessness then, and I really don’t want to end up in that situation again so I have taken many precautions. I have enough savings to live on for a long time. If I lose those, I have six people (mostly relatives) who would let me live with them for as long as I needed to. If they don’t, I have four more who would let me live with them for a few weeks. I think I could only become homeless if I got addicted to drugs or developed a mental illness that made me unbearable to be around. That’s not impossible but it is unlikely.
The answer to the mentally ill homeless problem is not enshittification of cities, it’s the creation of high quality government run long term care facilities with approprate action taken against those who abuse the residents in these facilities.
Which is helping more. It will also be cheaper than enshittification in the long run. But you liberals will never understand that sometimes you have to actually spend money on social programs instead of running to the right whenever the republicans say boo.
All your arguments are running to the right. Reagan would have been proud.
Yeah, but Republican voters want to hurt people who aren’t like them. How will your proposal help them do that??
