I think you are projecting a viewpoint on to my words that I didn’t assert. Did I say, or even imply, that I am for or against these bans? I stated I believe that people that comment on this will probably have less information than necessary to make a reasonable argument.
You are implying that you’re for the bans, or at the very least, that they’re reasonable because of some nuance. You literally do that again here in this comment:
people that comment on this will probably have less information than necessary to make a reasonable argument.
The default conclusion that most will have is that banning homeless people is a really shitty thing to do.
What extra info do we need to reasonably come to the conclusion? Where’s the nuance? I even went and read the first half or so and skimmed the rest(because it seemed repetitive and is more lengthy than I wanted to read) but there’s nothing there that even attempted to change my mind.
The nuance is that there is more to it than, “really shitty.” I’m not going to bring out the yellow legal pad and start up a Pros and Cons list for or against the bans, because there is no point to it. Banning them or not banning them has ramifications that extend so far beyond “really shitty” that it’s a fucking insult to anyone involved that you even typed it out. So, please, save your virtue signalling, I don’t want to hear how “lame”, or “whack” the housing crisis and the homeless problems are. I bet they do over on TikTok, though, so why don’t you waste your time over there so I don’t have to read your bullshit here.
The nuance is that if they built the homeless shelters that are needed, there wouldn’t be “needles in the park and angry homeless people shouting” problems as the article states, because they wouldn’t be in the park where kids play. I get that you’re saying “some people don’t understand what it’s like to live with the burden, danger, and discomfort of homeless people,” but there is no argument for these bans that will ever be just imo.
If it’s like the Midwest, I’m sure there’s a fucking empty ass mall or warehouse or dealership somewhere they can turn into a homeless shelter if one fucking capitalist would just hand it over to the public instead of holding on to it to owe less taxes.
The nuance is that if they built the homeless shelters that are needed, there wouldn’t be “needles in the park and angry homeless people shouting” problems as the article states, because they wouldn’t be in the park where kids play.
I live in a city dealing with this right now, and while I have never been directly involved, I did date someone who was and dealt with their emotional distress every day when they would come home from the shelter they worked at. There isn’t a lack of shelters, at least in my city. What there is is a wealth of people that have been kicked out of the shelters for violence, drug use, and other law breaking offenses.
So, now your argument is “We need to get these people the help they need, then.”
Yep. Doing that, too. Turns out the problem people, the ones that are screaming at kids and leaving the needles around, are the ones that don’t accept the mental health help they need. And, it’s a human rights violation to force them into treatment against their will, so now what do we do?
Well, one option is arresting them. However, that just clogs up an already over burdened legal system (they don’t just “go to jail”, they have to be tried, too, and that means judges, state appointed lawyers, etc.)
Another is fining them, but if they could afford those fines, they would probably not be in as harsh a state as they are now, so that’s off the table.
We can’t outlaw the drugs they are taking because that’s fucking stupid and Reagan was a cunt for trying, so that’s out of the question.
Do you see now why I responded the way I did? It isn’t because I am for the bans or against them. There are nuances to each side. I responded the way I did because all of this is completely fucking worthless to talk about with fucking strangers on a fucking web forum where nothing will fucking happen. It’s a waste of fucking time.
So, yeah, let’s go with your idea and cram all of the homeless into an abandoned strip mall, because that will solve the problems. Who is going to work there? Who is going to cover the cost of construction to get it fit to live in (bathrooms, kitchens, privacy, etc.)? N U A N C E. Nothing is as simple as everyone wants to think it is. We aren’t 1 step away from solving this problem. We aren’t even 100 steps away.
Oh, and before you say “that’s what our taxes should be going towards” when I ask about who is going to pay for all this shit, just shut up now, because I don’t have the breath to waste explaining tax law to someone who thinks that homelessness can be fixed with a fucking vacant strip mall.
Yep. You got me. I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Just, please, shut the fuck up, I can’t deal with whatever it is you think you mean.
I think you are projecting a viewpoint on to my words that I didn’t assert. Did I say, or even imply, that I am for or against these bans? I stated I believe that people that comment on this will probably have less information than necessary to make a reasonable argument.
You are implying that you’re for the bans, or at the very least, that they’re reasonable because of some nuance. You literally do that again here in this comment:
The default conclusion that most will have is that banning homeless people is a really shitty thing to do. What extra info do we need to reasonably come to the conclusion? Where’s the nuance? I even went and read the first half or so and skimmed the rest(because it seemed repetitive and is more lengthy than I wanted to read) but there’s nothing there that even attempted to change my mind.
The nuance is that there is more to it than, “really shitty.” I’m not going to bring out the yellow legal pad and start up a Pros and Cons list for or against the bans, because there is no point to it. Banning them or not banning them has ramifications that extend so far beyond “really shitty” that it’s a fucking insult to anyone involved that you even typed it out. So, please, save your virtue signalling, I don’t want to hear how “lame”, or “whack” the housing crisis and the homeless problems are. I bet they do over on TikTok, though, so why don’t you waste your time over there so I don’t have to read your bullshit here.
The nuance is that if they built the homeless shelters that are needed, there wouldn’t be “needles in the park and angry homeless people shouting” problems as the article states, because they wouldn’t be in the park where kids play. I get that you’re saying “some people don’t understand what it’s like to live with the burden, danger, and discomfort of homeless people,” but there is no argument for these bans that will ever be just imo.
If it’s like the Midwest, I’m sure there’s a fucking empty ass mall or warehouse or dealership somewhere they can turn into a homeless shelter if one fucking capitalist would just hand it over to the public instead of holding on to it to owe less taxes.
I live in a city dealing with this right now, and while I have never been directly involved, I did date someone who was and dealt with their emotional distress every day when they would come home from the shelter they worked at. There isn’t a lack of shelters, at least in my city. What there is is a wealth of people that have been kicked out of the shelters for violence, drug use, and other law breaking offenses.
So, now your argument is “We need to get these people the help they need, then.”
Yep. Doing that, too. Turns out the problem people, the ones that are screaming at kids and leaving the needles around, are the ones that don’t accept the mental health help they need. And, it’s a human rights violation to force them into treatment against their will, so now what do we do?
Well, one option is arresting them. However, that just clogs up an already over burdened legal system (they don’t just “go to jail”, they have to be tried, too, and that means judges, state appointed lawyers, etc.)
Another is fining them, but if they could afford those fines, they would probably not be in as harsh a state as they are now, so that’s off the table.
We can’t outlaw the drugs they are taking because that’s fucking stupid and Reagan was a cunt for trying, so that’s out of the question.
Do you see now why I responded the way I did? It isn’t because I am for the bans or against them. There are nuances to each side. I responded the way I did because all of this is completely fucking worthless to talk about with fucking strangers on a fucking web forum where nothing will fucking happen. It’s a waste of fucking time.
So, yeah, let’s go with your idea and cram all of the homeless into an abandoned strip mall, because that will solve the problems. Who is going to work there? Who is going to cover the cost of construction to get it fit to live in (bathrooms, kitchens, privacy, etc.)? N U A N C E. Nothing is as simple as everyone wants to think it is. We aren’t 1 step away from solving this problem. We aren’t even 100 steps away.
Oh, and before you say “that’s what our taxes should be going towards” when I ask about who is going to pay for all this shit, just shut up now, because I don’t have the breath to waste explaining tax law to someone who thinks that homelessness can be fixed with a fucking vacant strip mall.
Wow dude.
You seem like you’ve been on that pot forever, and can’t decide if you’re gonna shit or fuck off.
One thing is sure as shit though, you love looking down on people.
I… wow.
Yep. You got me. I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Just, please, shut the fuck up, I can’t deal with whatever it is you think you mean.
Fair…
You still haven’t shared your expert nuance after reading a pretty cut and dry article.
Here is a bit more for you, from another reply.
https://lemmy.world/comment/10038886