How is this liberalism?
For those not in the know, covenant house is a homeless shelter for kids based in NYC. They house homeless children up to age 21. I emancipated myself when I was 16 and started college. Stupid me didn’t realize that the dorms closed during Thanksgiving, Christmas, and other holidays. Going back home for the holidays was out of the question because my mother let my rapist back into the house to live with her, (the reason why I emancipated myself in the first place.) I spent every holiday my freshman year of college at covenant house. I slept on a mat in a room with a bunch of other kids, but it was better than being on the streets and I didn’t go hungry. I learned my lesson after that year and rented a room sophomore-senior instead of deciding to live in dorm housing. For anyone that knows any homeless children that need help, they have a crisis line called the 9 line. 1-800-999-9999.
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.
I mean, it’s not perfect. A lot of advocacy groups for the homeless are actually critical of the plan, primarily because it doesn’t address the underlying issues that cause homelessness and because the efficacy of forced drug and mental health treatment is questionable at best. But it’s better than putting arm rests on benches, that’s for sure.
Oh, I didn’t realize it was kids hour for neolibs to comment on lemmy.
Well, get your ignorance out now kids, it is gonna hurt less than if you deny it wayyyyy into your adulthood…
sigh
falls asleep on bench
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 ❤️
Wow so you have no heart? Figures, person who can’t use english the way I have arbitrarily decided it should be used based on other the word farts of people who are suffocatingly similar in lack of imagination to me.
English as does every other language evolve with use. Words mean whatever we decide they do. If zoomers decided that skibidi means cool or awesome than it means cool or awesome. If that weren’t the case then the following text: “Eall folc weorþaþ frēo and efne bē āre and rihtum ġeboren. Ġerād and inġehyġd sind heom ġifeþu, and hīe þurfon tō ōþrum ōn fēore brōþorsċipes dōn.” would be perfectly understood by any English speaker.
Who is Merriam-Webster? Some woke billionaire?
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
Technically speaking liberalism is about letting business do whatever they want without regulation. Some of those regulations are unions and fair pay and fair labor laws. Those things all do a good job or eliminating homelessness. Social programs could easily end homelessness, and a functioning, non abusive foster care system would eliminate a huge amount of homelessnes, poverty and crime. These require regulation business and taxing the wealthy sufficiently too fund program that help orphans, children in general, and the working class who have been largely shoved below poverty, the rest of our social problems would be eliminated by an education system that is geared tower maximum education for everyone capable and NOT saving money and making sure we don’t accidently educate poor or non white children too much.
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!
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.
Because it is popular to shit on liberals like everyone of them is a neo liberal. The truth is it is the conservatives that have been destroying public spaces like this. Although you could argue that the libs have not done much to stop them.
I live in a small tourist town and the conservative business owners have lobbied to take out all the benches in town because of a few homeless people. Now our elders have no place to sit. They even did it to our little mall.
So because homeless people we no longer have anywhere to sit in public and even private spaces. It is beyond stupid.
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.
Can I just say I used to live in a country with shanty towns and it sucks, it’s a shit show. Why would anyone want that? Slapping tiny homes on city parks isn’t a solution it’s just stupid
I was referring to like, parks, and town squares. Town squares are pretty rare in the US
U.s is weird in that you can go from state to state and it feels like completely different countries, some are gorgeous and well kept and others are straight up third world
pros of sleeping on concrete: heat from underground. cons: mice
Mice are just new friends, chief.
Mice are just new meals, chef
Mice are just new chefs, meef
Mice are just new chefs, Alfredo
Anyone can cook!
How would sleeping on that bench be any better than the ground even without the arms? If it was cold at all you would freeze from below.
There’s an old saying - you’re warmer in a bush than on a bench
Provided, of course, that the leaves are variegated.
Or gentrified or whatever!
It feels safer to be a bit more above ground level, especially if people walk by
Hygiene.
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?
On the contrary: a leftist didn’t build that bench, but it’s exactly the sort of thing a liberal would do.
False
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
Its silly that you can see one of the unifying concept that holds the Republican coalition together, but liberal one.
The Democratic gerentocracy embodies the problems of the Democrats. Hell, there’s a significant portion of the Democratic party that are just conservatives now who are disproportionately represented in the leadership. But the thing that holds them together is maintaining power.
This means they don’t fight if they deem the fallout risk to be too high. They bend a knee in symbolic support and then through all the symbolism and say it was the young progressive who poison them.
Choosing not to fight, let’s them maintain power. Most of their fight is boxing out other voices from gaining power within their coalition. But when the shit hits the fan, and the Republicans have gained control, the Democrats cry uncle, blame the progressives, and turn to us and ask us, “Who else are you going to vote for?”
Yah I love how places like Lemmy are packed to overflowing with “radical leftists” who scream murder at liberals and moderates and how broadly appealing progressive policies aren’t going far enough to address [issue X].
Guys, we’re getting literally murdered out there, figuratively and literally. If there was ever a time to start building larger coalitions, it’s now. No, you’re not getting everything you want. No, we’re not having a revolution, we don’t have the military. Yes, you will have to compromise. And if you hate that word because you think it means walking alongside someone you despise…
Tough shit.
Pick an issue, gather allies, overwhelm it, then repeat for the NEXT issue and realize nobody is coming, you may not see a better world in your lifetime, your immediate sense of resignation at this fact is manufactured. Get your shit together. Your personal problems are clouding your thinking.
They’re winning because they don’t recoil in horror at the idea of working towards mid-way goals or making deals they find distasteful, that’s how they pushed the overton window off the fucking map.
But yeah, lets continue to fuss over if our flags represent enough people and if [popular content creator] said the word “retard” once, while our administration builds camps and readies for war for funsies.
edit: just because I’m ready to soak up hate on this, you all also need to make real friends. You don’t build movements in discord, not ones that have impact at least. You are medicating your loneliness while the world burns outside. Get out and push through the discomfort of your introversion, your ADHD, your ASD, your sexual identity insecurity, your looks or your accent or WHATEVER it is that you think is keeping you from being social and building community. We lost because we’re isolated. Online groups don’t count. Don’t reply to me, go outside.
Big tent liberalism is exactly what got you the anti-union, pro-war, pro-fracking, anti-immigrant democratic party of today. Every single time someone argues for speaking to a broader base it’s used as an excuse to move further right. And it isn’t working. Please, for the love of god, learn from the past three election cycles.
If you have a way to make it work without compromise let me know, I’m all ears. Expert Mode: something that doesn’t involve waiting for some charismatic and perfect savior figure to somehow come out of the sky and start successfully advocating for socialism. Nobody is coming.
Because what we’re doing now isn’t working.
That’s kind of a broad question, and there’s at least two contexts in which I can answer it. One is on a personal level, and one is more on the level of “what should the DNC do if they want to win another election”.
Personal answer first. Quite simple:
-
join a union
-
engage in mutual aid
-
read theory (yes really)
-
local politics (no matter how local) matter, act like it
-
vote for politicians and their policies because you believe in them, not because other guy bad. If your choice is between Hitler and Hitler wearing a funny hat, voting uncommitted is not only your democratic right, but your duty. If you guarantee your vote to a politician regardless of what rhey do or advocate for, the politician has no reason whatsoever to listen to you or cater to your needs. None.
Now if you’re asking as a card carrying DNC member with influence:
-
Do not capitulate to right wing framing. You will never win at being right wing, the right wing is much better at that than you. Concretely, engage in counter messaging. For example, when it comes to undocumented immigrants, frame them as a boon to society (which they are) and aggressively fight anyone who claims they commit more crimes (they don’t, in fact they commit fewer per capita), don’t say “I agree mr republican, and my border policies are just as draconian as yours, if not more, just as they should be!” Same with fracking, genocide, crime, taxes, etc. Be an alternative, not a weak derivative.
-
Don’t fund a genocide. So easy. All you have to do is not send 17.8 billion in military aid to any country committing a genocide. You see a country committing genocide? Do not send 17.8 billion dollars in military aid. If you can’t help yourself and have to send the money anyway, don’t go bragging about it on your campaign trail, you fucking idiot. More generally, people do not like war, and prefer not to spend billions on some country they’ve never been to. Trump managed to position himself as the peace candidate TWICE because the dems kept falling over themselves to prove how fucking hawkish they were. This is pure incompetence.
-
Start advocating for worker’s rights. Stronger unions, higher minimum wage, forced and paid parental leave, paid sick leave, and so on. These are deeply popular positions, as polling shows, also among people who normally vote republican. A one time tax credit is not worker’s rights.
-
Start advocating for universal health care again. Or at least fucking mention it every now and then. The US is the only nation in the developed world (and beyond?) that doesn’t have this, you can gain so much on this.
Follow these simple steps and you’ll win your next election!
So wait for a charismatic and perfect savior. We see what happens every time someone of this stature reaches the actual federal election stage.
I’m talking about what people can do here and now, which is built coalitions and not have purity tests about who is in it, just focus on single-issues like the right has done successfully over and over and over.
For some reason whenever someone says “compromise” every lefty immediately pictures “submitting on trans rights and abortion” or something.
I’m saying as individuals, you and me, scared lemmy browsers who don’t think they have power: build social connections, make more friends, build activism groups, start in local communities and keep it fixated on solving ONE populist problem that we can get a much wider array of people behind, like childcare or school lunches or yes healthcare and unions, social security or other public safety nets and the whole long laundry list of items we want, but instead of overwhelming a population, local or national, with a huge list of inclusivity and ideals, we attack one thing at a time. I have watched the right do this over and over and each time they fucking WIN.
Again, your notions of an ideal candidate you would vote for are spot-on, I would vote for that person in a heartbeat, most would, but that person doesn’t exist and they won’t exist until they can ride on the momentum of grass-roots movements to tackle populist issues. The democrat party is not our ally here, not without a mandate under it and if we’re more clever about building those mandates and then tying them together when it’s time, we might have success.
But I’m getting really pessimistic here. Voter turnout is not the problem. Everyone, everywhere, is avoiding mixing. The atomization of our world is the problem. We had the highest voter turnouts and youth involvement in the last several elections than we’ve ever had, and they voted Trump. That’s my whole point, that’s the key we have to fight against, how someone like a brazen fascist and idiot can sway so many people, and it starts with re-mixing our values and perspectives and this may take some kind of “compromise” that may make a lot of isolated lefties really uncomfortable, like having conversations with people you don’t like, like accepting people who hate you into your protest so you can both tackle a problem you both hate. If we can cross that boundary we can start mixing together again and pulling people out of this programming that corporate media does. Isolationism is killing our whole world and all our hope for the future.
Except talking to people I don’t agree with is exactly what I do. I am doing it to you now! Think about that! I regularly get in arguments online with the opposite side on reddit. I talk to people here I don’t agree with too. I’ve spent plenty of time talking with people offline too, though often with less aggression. I doubt I am the only person doing this. In fact I have seen evidence of others doing this. So I am not sure where you get your ideas from to be perfectly honest.
The above is actually the exact opposite of what leftists are normally told to do, yet so many do it anyway. I am really wondering what is going on in your head mate. Me thinks you are delusional. Having people argue against each other often justs radicalises them further, this is a known fact. It doesn’t help “deatomize” them or whatever you are talking about.
As for working with people you hate: you shouldn’t be forced to protest with people who hate who you are because of prejudice. That’s not something you should ever ask of anyone. It’s perfectly reasonable to use violence against such people in fact. It might even be effective. Things are often solved through killing after all, that’s what war is. That’s how the Nazis were beat last time.
Except talking to people I don’t agree with is exactly what I do. I am doing it to you now! Think about that!
It’s literally ALL i wanted out of this.
So wait for a charismatic and perfect savior.
Did you not read what I said? I’m talking about taking up concrete policy positions. Profoundly uncharismatic people like Biden, Harris, Clinton can do that. And yes, it will gain them votes.
Well not Biden obviously because he’s been non compos mentis for the past three years, but you get the point.
I tried. If anyone gets what I’m saying, power to them and the kernel of hope rides in their hands. Otherwise I’m done. Peace.
-
Because when they compromise it’s never with the left. They always compromise with the right. They want the left to compromise with them but they never make any concessions towards the left.
Who exactly are you going to form groups with? I am a bit lost on where you would even get started on something like that. Most groups I have seen advertised or have any success are extremists I wouldn’t want to be a part of. I don’t want to go back to being a Trotskyist just to have any meaningful impact. You berate neurodivergent and queer people specifically as not getting off their ass, yet those are the kinds of people in the ranks of these organisations. It’s not like your average person is going to go and join the Labour party either.
Not all situations are like America. Here in the UK the backsliding is happening with the traditionally left leaning party who got in power using after massive fuck ups by the conservatives. So the right wing lost hard, but the other party have moved towards them. So you can’t even say it’s an issue with the alt-right like America. Instead it’s actually an issue with the left wing party and left wing moderates. Voting for and allying with them has enabled this behavior. It has enabled them to go after transgender people specifically. Ironically the conservatives might have actually done better in this case, as they haven’t expressed issues with queer people in recent times to my knowledge.
We are facing a huge problem that nobody seems to be able to identify, which is not voter turnout. The sad, horrible truth is the last couple election cycles we had record turnout and more young people involved than ever before… AND THEY VOTED FOR TRUMP. It’s going to happen all across the world as more and more people have access to their little algorithmic ideology bubbles.
So what’s the problem? Atomization of groups. Everyone is isolated and not exposed to each other’s perspectives and it’s making a vacuum that corporations are easily leveraging to get their right-wing puppets installed so they can make line go up. This atomization is literally turning people delusional, and if we don’t push back on it we are going to lose not just the USA but all democracy and organization.
We fight it with activity and community and socialization. If it takes screaming at people to get off their asses, I will do that and I will do it in ways that piss people off if it gets attention.
You berate neurodivergent and queer people specifically
Exactly the kind of bad-faith, seething, atomized perspective I want to fight by forcing people like YOU to listen to people like ME who will say things to piss you off and make you reconsider what someone else is saying. We need to do that not on Lemmy but out in bars, in family gatherings, in social media, in public lectures, in town council meetings and so on. Withdrawing now will kill you all. I am being dead serious. This avoidance of conflict except with people who want the same outcome as you is ruining our entire world.
I already talk politics on normie social media, and in bars, and even to colleagues sometimes. I do all these things, for all the good it might do. You don’t fully understand who you are talking to, the demographic you are trying to address, anymore than you understand politics outside of America. Queer and Neurodivergent people are already some of the most radicalised people who fight the most. They make up a good chunk of the alt-right, and much of the alt-left too. You have just spent too much time talking to the chronically online individuals or whatever the term is.
As I said here we had a landslide loss against the right wing party. Mainly because the British people won’t tolerate the kinds of scandals that the politicians got up to, certainly we wouldn’t tolerate Trump here. The outcome though was the left wing party doing the bad stuff instead. It’s not about compromise when people’s rights are on the line. I am not saying don’t vote where you are, and I certainly voted where I am. It’s just at this point that strategy isn’t working as well as it should. While screaming at people is great, I don’t even know what to tell them to do. Whoever I would tell them to vote for either won’t get in, will do harmful things, or are far too radical for normal people to go for, or some combo of the above. Not really convinced that screaming works either. Honey catches more flies than vinegar. Especially with someone like you who is screaming at the wrong people in the wrong way for probably the wrong reasons.
You have just spent too much time talking to the chronically online individuals or whatever the term is.|
I have, and I know it, and those are who I am speaking to the most because that’s who are here in sites like this in the most numbers. I am here trying to rally people, even if it’s out of spite and anger and offense, to stay involved.
The last presidential election we had has had some of the highest voter participation and youth participation in history, and they still voted for Trump, so the problem isn’t exterior, it’s coming from inside the house, and as long as we’re lamenting and feeling like shit about it, we’re falling into their trap.
So it’s fine to paint one side with a single stroke but not the other. Got it
Either make compromises with other progressives or continue to let conservatives enact their vision of society to our collective detriment. Those are the options.
Except don’t make “compromises” like the DNC where they abandon their base to chase after conservative voters that will never, ever, ever vote for them.
In this case, at least lately, it less a brush stroke and more of a high resolution camera.
Once you support extremists, the argument of nuance becomes almost irrelevant to the rest of their victims.
The Democrats and ‘liberals’ are also extremists. The parent comment is literally about their victims.
who here said both sides same?
Both sides currently yell and scream at anyone that doesn’t agree with them unequivocally. I don’t agree with everything liberal, and a few conservative viewpoints I do agree with. But for the most part I consider myself to be a moderate.
But vocalizing that I disagree with how to do something and both sides will either call me a libtard or a MAGAt.
This is something both sides have an issue with. So stop saying both sides is wrong. Here is an example that disproves that statement completely.
All I want is a party by and for the people. Not billionaires. Done with idiocracy and insanity.
Having this opinion in 2025. Amazing
All I want is a party by and for the people.
Sounds like you’d be interested in Marxism then.
All I want is a party by and for the people
Never going to happen.
Political parties are run by the wealthy elite, not “the people”
There’s nothing to allow for a candidate who is sincere but not connected to big money to succeed at anything but the most local of elections.
If someone were to win a bigger federal level election with word of mouth and no money, be sure that whatever social media platform that allowed their word to go out and grow was on their side and working in the shadows of their ‘formula’ that promotes some content over others.
I will guarantee that anyone who campaigns on abolishing lobbyists and PAC donations will landslide. Hell, elect me and I’ll do it because I really don’t gaf about money. Extra bonus: I DESPISE Nazis and the Telecommunications Act.
How exactly are you going to campaign with no money lol
Spend a moment or two thinking and trying to be smart, okay?
If you were right it would be happening and they would be winning.
It just doesn’t happen. If you aren’t D or R you’re not getting party funded, and running independent is fucking hard. If you’re D or R You’ll get primaried to death by a better funded same party opponent who doesn’t mess with the source of said party funding.
Yankee woke neo_Liberalism is stupidity trying to look good with little to no oversight. Yankee Conservatism is bitches runing wild.
An angle grinder would make short work of those “arm rests.”
If you don’t do it perfectly, it’ll leave sharp edges.
i doubt they are welded, a wrench or pliers might do
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.
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.
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.
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’ve actually been homeless. Have you?
No. But since you have experience, let me ask you: did you spend time sleeping on public benches and do you think features that attempt to prevent this are an attack on homeless people? And just to be clear, since this is a text-only format, I’m not being sarcastic or trying to make light of your experience; I’m genuinely curious.
When I was homeless all the shelters were full, and housing was a year plus wait for anything. I often slept in a concrete tube under a bridge. Then the government came in, removed the tubes, and puts spikes all over the concrete under the bridge. Yes I felt it was an attack. I was forced to move further out from where I could attain help, and do something to sustain myself, only making it harder for me to exist. Dealing with the government to maintain my place of residence, and medical treatment, is a part time job, where I spend, literally, 4-6 hours on hold with places like Jobs and Family Services, and the local housing authority. I can absolutely understand how easy it would be for me to stay homeless if I were say, schizophrenic. Luckily I am not, and I can maintain things like schedules, keep dozens of appointments per month, etc.
This is one of the worst possible ways to encourage people to seek help. it shows a deep lack of understanding what day-to-day life is for the homeless, especially ones who are very mentally ill.
As I said to another commenter, “anti-homeless” measures like these make zero sense if there aren’t resources for the homeless available. I’m sorry, it doesn’t sound like resources were available to you, and that truly sucks. Your state should do better.
However, in places where resources are available, homeless people still sometimes refuse to utilize them, and then measures like this become valid and utilitarian.
Luckily, I became homeless in very late '99, where at least the area I was in, didn’t have anti-sleeping measures installed on public benches, yet. Until I secured a shitty car to live out of, on the days I wasn’t lucky to have a friend offer a spot to crash, parks were the only hope. I was removed by the police from them a bunch of times, told I cannot be sleeping there. When asked if they know any place I could spend the night, they spent zero time trying to help me. Told me to get out of there already.
It was really tempting to commit a crime, serious enough to get booked for few days, where I could catch up on sleep without freezing. Fact those benches didn’t have anti-sleeping measures, made for a few great nights where I could get some decent rest, which wouldn’t have happened nowadays. So yeah, hard to say it’s not an attack on homeless people, specially when the public servants have zero fucks to help you out.Sounds like the area you were in didn’t have adequate homeless shelters. Where I live, you could always have gone there. The cops wouldn’t necessarily have taken you there, but you could certainly have gotten there in your own.
I will admit that “anti-homeless” bench features don’t make much sense unless you have places and resources for homeless people to fall back on. But if there are said resources, I see the utility of these features to disincentivize homeless people from using public benches as a substitute for getting professional help.
The time you went to Starbucks and left your keys inside your house doesn’t count, Brian
Says they are a therapist and that they know better than anyone. Doesn’t know anything about me.
HOW EMBARRASSING IT MUST BE FOR YOU TO EXIST.
Right, the person throwing insults in all caps says I’m the one who should be embarrassed. 🙄
You still don’t get it, do you?
You have no idea how you appear to be insulting because your head is so far up your ass you smell like meconium.
I made a neutral comment, stating my opinion without any insults, and have been getting insulting comments like yours ever since. You want to throw barbs, but object to them being thrown back.
Grow the fuck up. I’m done with you in particular.
Get educated before you spout off, nitwit.
Oh, the irony! 🤣
You do realize you’re just embarrassing yourself all over this thread, right?
Ah yes, sharing they have experience working with homeless, how embarrassed they must be
Claiming that they have experience working with homeless, but demonstrating that they’re a callous asshole (and probably very bad at their job, if they aren’t outright lying).
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.
It’s a political problem. Houseless people are there because there’s no political willpower to create systematic change to support them. So you’re absolutely right when you say:
we must either come up with new resources or reevaluate our investments in the resources we currently employ.
The only problem is the answer to this question is more often on the side of the investment not being worth it, so the problem is left unaddressed.
Not where I live. There are plenty of options for the homeless in my city, but we still have problems with homeless people taking up public space because they would rather be left alone and not address their problems.
Do you think I’m lying? Can you not empathize with this problem? Do you really think all homeless people flock to the resources available to them? None of them resort to vagrancy at all? Do you think the inventors of these bench features had steepled fingers and were like, “Let’s fuck these homeless MFers even harder!”?
Providing resources only goes so far. As a therapist, I can easily tell you that merely making help available does not guarantee the needy will come get help. Sometimes, you have to make it impossible for people to escape the consequences of their actions before they’ll do the work necessary to get better.
I’ve worked with hundreds of homeless people, usually trying to help them before the cops sweep their camp, or keeping their car rolling so they can keep living in it.
There was a ubiquitous set of conditions:
- can’t afford housing even though they had a job.
- lost identifying documents, usually in a sweep, and working on replacing them. You can’t get work without these.
- no reliable postal address
- no support network
I’ve never met anyone who wanted to be living on the street.
I’m not talking about crust punks train hopping. I’m talking about the people who missed a day of work for whatever reason and couldn’t make rent one month. Now they’re in a tent near available services because the shelter kicked them out after the max stay of a week.
Being a therapist gives you no expertise here and it seems to me that a therapist who sees punishment as a viable means for behavioral change is kind of shit at their job.
It sounds like wherever you are does not have adequate services for their homeless population. That’s a serious problem, and I would obviously advocate for the expansion of said services over sleep-prevention measures added to park benches.
But I am a therapist with experience working with homeless people, and contrary to what you apparently think, my experience does give me expertise on their lives. Where I live, they do have options. I’m sorry your state doesn’t serve its homeless population as well as mine. We can both agree that’s a bad thing. What we disagree on is that this simple park benches feature is/isn’t an “attack” on homeless people. I also hold the position that methadone clinics are a disservice to opioid addicts—due to my extensive experience with that population who are still addicted to opioids, and whose methadone clinics actively encourage them to remain on methadone rather than titrate off of it. Are you going to tell me that being against that is an “attack” on heroin addicts?
I’m sorry you’ve had the experiences you’ve had, but my position is entirely defensible, and you haven’t presented me with any evidence to the contrary. Moreover, your contention that I’m a “bad” therapist speaks volumes about your naïveté regarding my profession.
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.
“Welcome! What brings you to the homeless shelter today?”
“Well, it’s that bench. You see, I was choosing the unhoused lifestyle, and I was fine with all the other stigma and physical discomforts, until I realized that the city wants to discourage my presence in public spaces. Fuck these armrests, I decided I’d just come to this shelter, get treatment for my addiction, get counseling for my traumatic past that fed the addiction, get an education, get a job, rent a house, save money, then buy a home instead. It’s just not worth trying to get comfy on that bench.”
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.
You can’t disconnect the problems you are pretending are separate.
Fuck you.
Ah yes, petty insults
The leftist huckster’s crutch
Fuck you.
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.
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?
Well if it it’s the change of tune.
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.
making the world as hostile as possible is a good thing?
Oh, please, seriously? I advocate for a feature in public spaces that disincentivizes homeless people from sleeping on park benches and you think I’m trying to create a living Hell for them? After I’ve already also advocated for more to be put into affordable housing and outreach services for them? Get over your self-righteousness, man. Demonizing me won’t convince me or anyone else.
And for the record, gaslighting is when you lie and manipulate a person ways that specifically cause them to doubt their perception of reality; it’s not a catch-all term for saying something someone else thinks is untrue.
Perhaps you should read your own comments with that in mind.
Well you do seem Keen to insist in enabling a dangerous and damaging behavior in them
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?
Those people don’t exist, they are just an excuse for you to be cruel
Your refusal to acknowledge their existence is what is cruel.
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
I’m a side sleeper. I can sleep on this bench. Given the other half of the government would get rid of the bench altogether, this is a good compromise. Now if you want to get rid of the divider altogether, the fascist side of the government needs to be thoroughly and consistently beaten. That’s just the system. You can make an argument that the “ideal” left is incompetent too for always losing.
