• kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    4 months ago

    “Hey, we really don’t want you out here on the street, so we’re gonna have to do something about it.”

    “You’re gonna give us homes?”

    “lol no”

    • Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      “if we can’t have homes and we can’t be in public where are we supposed to go?”

      “Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh”

    • bamfic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      You either give them homes or you line them up and shoot them. Those are the only two options.

      Though if bullets are too expensive you can just gas them and then cremate them, which might be a more efficient Final Solution to The Homeless Question.

      • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        American eugenics sought to solve poverty by forcibly sterilizing the poor. The only reason it fell out of favor was the great depression when suddenly people who were once employed decided that maybe this wasn’t fair now that they were about to be sterilized.

        Which ties back in nicely to WW2, I unfortunately have to give some of the lawyers at the nunumberg trials praise for arguing “How can America sit in judgement of Nazi concentration camps when eugenics has been established legal by the Supreme Court?

        Anyways, economic eugenics is coming back in fashion thanks to NIMBYs that just can’t stand to see the results of treating the basics to life as commodities.

      • pdxfed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        The military industrial response to Vietnam protests and the utter unpopularity of an evil war that continues for decades and still has scars on America let alone SE Asia for me is the defining turn post WWII. Ike himself, as a general, directly stated the greatest threat to American democracy was the military industrial complex. The threats have multiplied since then.

        The Atomic Cafe is a great documentary made solely with archival footage including the Ike quote above. It’s chilling hearing that said 60+ years ago by a general and sitting president.

        • fuzz00713@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Just look up Eisenhower’s speech when he left office where he warns of the Military Industrial Complex. He knew what was coming.

  • PotentialProblem@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    Gonna risk going a bit against the grain here…

    I have a lot of empathy for their situation.

    I don’t know what the solution is but it isn’t the status quo. A lot of the west coast cities are having a disproportionate problem with homeless. It’s not clear if people are bussing their homeless or the housing prices or what.

    The amount of trash generated by these homeless camps is nuts and ruins virtually every public space. In Portland, it is common to find hypodermic needles littered in the parks. You’ll walk past people on the sidewalk passed out with a needle in their arm or actively doing drugs. Human excrement on the sidewalk. I wish I had some solution but the current situation sucks for everyone.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I’m with you that that is inappropriate in public, and west coast cities are being hit super hard. The dirt little secret is that many interior cities do also run their homeless out.

      But the research shows the fastest, most sure fire way to reduce the problem is to just give folks a permanent address that is safe.

      Every effort should be made to give these folks a home, even if that home is some sort of rapid mass manufacture box with a door that locks.

      I do acknowledge that the states on the west coast shouldn’t be the only ones that need to follow that approach, and there clearly isn’t a solution for that. I.e. a state should be rapidly obligated to house IT’S homeless, not ALL OF AMERICA’S homeless… But that is a very complicated layer

      • BabyVi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        It seems like any state by state solution will fall prey to states that want to displace their homeless population instead of providing attainable housing. If we lived in a reasonable society the Federal government would intervene, but no dice.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Agree.

          I strongly believe the federal government needs to step in, with some sort of “new deal” conservation/work corp.

          As the unhoused are able, they can work for the work corp. The work corp will obviously be shit pay, but you should get basic federal healthcare, and basic housing provided. If you are unable to work, that’s not a blocker to receiving this basic housing.

          Anyway, we could be doing this right now, across the country, providing a safety net for so many people who are near-homeless, while also improving our country through the other projects the work corp could take on. Republicans should be happy as folks are incentivised to try to work, as their basic needs are met and they can operate from stability.

          I’m just spitballing here.

    • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      The problem is there are a lot of NIMBYs that would rather them trash their cities than hang out in their neighborhoods lowering their property value. They want the government to fix the problem, but don’t want their taxes raised to accommodate it.

      The people who protect the homeless are every bit as responsible for the problem as anyone they accuse.

      • sploosh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Sorry that we don’t like seeing people die because they’re mentally ill and can’t operate in society like the rest of us. We need an actual social safety net funded by all the wealth that society has created rather than letting robber barons take it all.

        • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          When you learn how things actually work, I’ll Have this discussion with you. But I can see that it will be a complete waste of time to continue.

          • sploosh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Lol, you have nothing to say when you’re confronted with the fact that you’re OK with people dying because we choose to call them a problem. Examine yourself, fellow human.

            • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              When you learn how things actually work, I’ll Have this discussion with you. But I can see that it will be a complete waste of time to continue.

        • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The homeless should be helped out of homelessness. Not protected to the point that they enable it.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      A lot of the west coast cities are having a disproportionate problem with homeless.

      Prices go up, rents go up, wages stay flat.

      Oops! Where did all the homeless people come from?!

      The amount of trash generated by these homeless camps is nuts and ruins virtually every public space.

      We live in a society of disposable things, but we don’t provide homeless people with trash service.

      You don’t see the trash you generate, because the city carts it away. Homeless people are forced to live in their own squalor because the city doesn’t cart it away.

      • Armok: God of Blood@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        A studio apartment can be over $3,000 in the Bay Area. Meanwhile, there are like five homeless people on every block of the city I lived in with five-digit population. The city would need to find some way to seize land, without calling for a vote, in order to have enough housing for everyone since rent control has been voted against for over a decade.

        The main issue is that people would vote to drive the homeless into the sea before they would vote to house them.

      • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s far more complicated than that for many of the homeless. A really high proportion have chronic mental health problems like schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder. These people cannot maintain even a basic apartment. Fires are common. As are faeces smeared on the walls, major structural damage, dead animals, bullet holes and use of firearms inside the premises. Throwing a mentally unwell person into a home to fend for themselves doesn’t work. The mental health treatment has to come first. It can take months, if not years, to help them out of their hole.

        Another significant portion of the homeless have chronic addiction. In addiction treatment, we say that “a locking door is a death sentence” because the LAST thing you want is to give a junky unsupervised privacy to shoot up as often as they like. Apartments often turn into local hubs for dealing and sex work. This attracts all kinds of unsavory characters and crime - especially violent crime. You don’t want to know what a junky would be willing to do to get a fix. A major part of this problem is called “destigmatization.” This is a great documentary on how it has so thoroughly failed in Vancouver, specifically.

        Both groups require intensive support before being given housing. Not after and not at the same time.

        • cybersin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The mental health treatment has to come first.

          No. Housing comes first. You cannot treat mental health or addiction while the patient is experiencing the inhumane conditions of homelessness.

          the LAST thing you want is to give a junky unsupervised privacy to shoot up as often as they like. Apartments often turn into local hubs for dealing and sex work. This attracts all kinds of unsavory characters and crime

          So you think the streets are better? Believe it or not, all this still happens on the street, except now there is no guarantee of food, shelter, safety, or property. I’m sure the constant threat of starvation, death by exposure, getting robbed, or being sexually assaulted is really beneficial to mental health. Do you really think being on the street stops addicts from using as much as they want? No privacy on the street? These people are already invisible. And no, if you don’t have a door that locks, you don’t become immune to overdosing.

          Shameful.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Lots of places swung hard the other way after the pandemic. That said there’s literally no easy this is constitutional and it’s already been ruled on. Some civil rights place will take it on for an easy slam dunk.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It doesn’t specifically ensure a right to sleep no but to enjoy public places is legal, I can camp on public grounds so long as it’s not gated or otherwise excluded or currently utilized. They can say don’t sleep on public benches because it prevents enjoyment from others and isn’t what they’re there for but if you pitch a tent in the woods that’s legal no matter what local governments say.

          • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I don’t think there’s anything in the Constitution about enjoying public spaces either. If you’re allowed to camp on state land in your state it’s because your state law permits it.

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              If I have the right to protest on public spaces because I have a measurable property right to it then I have the same right of enjoyment for any other protected right included simply existing and the necessities thereof.

              • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Someone already tried that in 1984. When homeless activists camped out on Lafayette Square in front of the White House, the Supreme Court ruled in Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence that the act of sleeping itself was “facilitative,” rather than “expressive,” meaning that campgrounds aren’t protected forms of speech at all.

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  No it was tried as a 1st amendment issue. It needs to be tried as a 4th amendment issue which it actually it.

                  Ie. Camping isn’t protected under the first amendment act as it isn’t expressive initself which that ruling if you read it makes clear. Essentially by itself it isn’t but it could theoretically be made expressive but that hasn’t be tried.

  • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    40
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m sure they’re terribly appreciative of you referring to them as “unhoused” so you can feel just a tiny bit morally superior to those that just call them homeless 😂

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think bums deserve respect and kindness from all of us. A lot of the time bums suffer from mental health issues caused by shame and trauma and that needs to be addressed with care and humility. These are human beings and how we treat our most vulnerable is a greater reflection of how we treat each other as a society. We need to help bums not only out of kindness but out of respect for society and ourselves as a whole.

      • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Precisely. I’ve been homeless myself and someone thinking I would be offended by being called homeless is fucking laughable

        Least of my fucking worries you daft cunt

        Edit, just realised myself, and all the upvoters, got wooooshed by suckmywang here with his overuse of “bum”

        Bravo 👏😂

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yes but remember, as far as the US govt is concerned, caring for the unhoused (and any other of the many impoverished and underserved of society for that matter) begins and ends with surface-level, performative respect. The kind where you make a banner and raise awareness, ya feel me? They would appreciate it if we didn’t ask for more than that. That costs money.

          • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            surface-level, performative respect. The kind where you make a banner and raise awareness

            Like changing the word to uNHoUsEd to make yourself feel better without affecting their lives in any way whatsoever? 😂

            Fuck off, help them in a better way

    • EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I mean, the term before homeless was literally street people. Terms change as they start to sound callous.

      • eatthecake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        And that rotation is pointless in they eyes of most. The important thing is that if being houseless is a crime then society owes these people a fucking house. You can’t criminalise extistence.

      • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        How on earth is unhoused any less callous than homeless?

        One of these sounds WAY more like unhinged 😂

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          The morality of this country is such that we correct those who do not use the proper term for the human beings we just threw the fuck out of the state

    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I actually think “unhoused” is stupid too, but imma just go along with the game and laugh when “unhoused” becomes a pejorative in the near future. Unless you like downvotes (in which case sorry to interrupt your fun) i suggest you do the same, because there are people who do care deeply, and if they’re already unhoused why kick em when they’re down?

      Hell at least It’s the same amount of syllables. (Unlike when “handicapped” became differently-abled, 3-5! Grrrrrrr). Anyway i bet we’ll only have to wait like a decade tops.