If I had the superpower of summoning tungsten blocks, I would use it for this. And bike lane barriers.
Homeless people be like, “a’ight I’ll sleep on the floor”.
Cops be like, “a’ight makes it easier to kick you”.
This is so old that even the date had to be blurred out.
Ah yes, this must be from the great “wear a mask” trend of 2010. I remember those times well.
The benches still aren’t there
That sucks. But it’s still ragebait.
His argument is still applicable as if it were posted today.
Yours that it’s ragebait implies (because ragebait implies that it’s based off a lie or something that no longer applies) doesn’t. It’s not “still” and wasn’t.
Rage bait doesn’t imply it’s a lie, it’s attempting to get others to engage by inciting anger. Not to mention that even if it did imply a lie, why did they blur the dates out? To make you think this was a recent change? Still falls in line with your definition of rage bait misleading you. It definitely was and still is rage bait.
Just for transparency’s sake before I go into this, my wife is second from the top at the library.
The library here really did have to remove benches outside in a couple of places (in part) because of homeless people. Not because they were sleeping on them, there are other places outside the library where the homeless can sleep and the library does what it can to help the local homeless community.
Unfortunately, some (far, far from most) of the local homeless around the library were either very publicly using drugs or getting so fucked up on those drugs (or possibly just having a really bad mental illness episode) that they were harassing people and scaring kids. So when it came time to replace all of the benches since they got too old, they decided that they would not replace some of them.
There was definitely a big outcry about how the library was being anti-homeless, but it was nuts because there were people on the other side still complaining about how the library always stinks because they let the homeless people in there. I may be biased because of my wife, but I’m also a regular patron and I’m pretty much on their side on this one. It was becoming a huge issue and they really didn’t want to keep getting the cops involved because they rightfully don’t trust what the cops might do with the homeless and only end up calling them as a last resort.
Society has absolutely failed those people though. There is no question about that. But at some point, the library had to draw a line at how accommodating they could be.
the local homeless around the library were either very publicly using drugs
Biggest drug dealers in America - the Sackler family - weren’t worth our time to punish. So some guy who washed out on Percocets and can only afford Fentanyl shouldn’t have a place to sit.
There was definitely a big outcry about how the library was being anti-homeless, but it was nuts because there were people on the other side still complaining about how the library always stinks because they let the homeless people in there.
In America you have two options -
- pretend homelessness and addiction aren’t happening
- destroy public property in a scorched earth campaign against drug use
The very idea of housing, treatment, and rehabilitation is too socialist to consider.
Biggest drug dealers in America - the Sackler family - weren’t worth our time to punish. So some guy who washed out on Percocets and can only afford Fentanyl shouldn’t have a place to sit.
I didn’t say being publicly intoxicated, I said publicly using drugs. As in they were shooting up while kids were being taken to storytime past them on the way to the library.
The library allows homeless people to be inside it from open to close. They give them free internet. They give them free help filling out necessary government forms. They hang around just to chat. They allow homeless people to sleep outside all around the building. They are literally building a shower and a washer/dryer facility in the new auxiliary library free for anyone to use.
In America, your local public library does more to help homeless people than anything you have probably done yourself, but I guess since they haven’t personally solved the problem, they’re the worst of the oppressors.
I didn’t say being publicly intoxicated, I said publicly using drugs. As in they were shooting up while kids were being taken to storytime past them on the way to the library.
We have a solution for this as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervised_injection_site
Proven highly effective for reducing crime, mitigating the need for emergency response, curtailing disease spread, and channeling addicts to rehabilitation clinics
But because it comes off as permissive and benevolent, rather than punitive and prohibitionary it remains Haram in much of the US.
In America, your local public library does more to help homeless people than anything you have probably done yourself
It’s a public service staffed with dozens of people. Of course a single person isn’t going to do more in spare time than a team of people doing the work professionally.
But that doesn’t excuse the rest of the state for tearing out local infrastructure as a means of tormenting the homeless.
“I did two good things so I have permission to do one bad thing” isn’t sounds public policy.
From my initial post:
Society has absolutely failed those people though. There is no question about that. But at some point, the library had to draw a line at how accommodating they could be.
But at some point, the library had to draw a line
It’s not the library staff making these decisions. Its inevitably the city council or the governor
It was not in this case, it was the chief administrator of the library.
Deciding on which benches are placed in the subway?
NIMBY City, USA.
If only they had somewhere to go other than a Library…
Read. They literally still sleep outside the library. The library has not driven them away. They took away benches so that they weren’t shooting up in front of toddlers going into the library.
As I told someone else- homeless people can be in the library from open to close. They can sleep on library property. They have free access to all library services including free internet, help accessing all kinds of government aid, and just having someone to talk to them if they’re lonely. In another branch, the library is putting in a shower and a washer/dryer for anyone to use for free.
But yes, they took away a few benches because of problem people rather than calling the cops.
What have you done to help the homeless?
As I said, if they had somewhere else to go to safely use, they wouldn’t be doing it on library benches. That’s who the NIMBY comment was directed toward, the councilmen or whoever that vote to remove those benches, but are almost certainly against having the actual solution because NIMBY.
Instead, just complain about how they smell or whatever, and shuffle them around somewhere else.
I agree we should build a homeless shelter right next to your house. And I’m sure you will be at the forefront to see that it happens…
Lol buddy, you don’t know where I live/work. No need to do that.
And where did I say “homeless shelter”?
Nice try at deflection.
And to continue the internet meme-- “I ain’t your buddy, Pal.”
I am not meming.
And it’s not deflecting. I’m not talking about homeless shelters, I am talking about comprehensive, government-funded, public housing (it doesn’t have to be shitty, look at what Finland has done). I am talking about safe injection sites. I am talking about social workers on the ground, every day, making sure that these people have what they need.
YIMBY. Bring it all on.
I already have people sleeping next to my house so that would be a huge improvement. YIMBY!
Sure, but I’m in favour of more permanent solution.
The thing is that you can give people every resource and they still will go where they feel like it. Whether because they don’t care or because they lack the mental facilities to make reasonable decisions due to mental health issues. There may not be a very good and safe answer for dealing with some folks.
Absolutely should give the resources, but be aware that won’t ensure they use those resources instead of doing things a way that is unsafe and/or unfairly inflicting problems on folks.
If only we had some real life data to see if things like safe injection sites work….… oh well I guess we’ll just have to make assumptions instead.
He laid out that that sort of accommodation is available, just that some people will still fail to avail themselves of it.
It may be even mostly working around his library, but that doesn’t mean there still are people falling to use those facilities.
The thing is that you can give people every resource and they still will go where they feel like it. Whether because they don’t care or because they lack the mental facilities to make reasonable decisions due to mental health issues. There may not be a very good and safe answer for dealing with some folks.
Are we talking about homelessness or about people walking?
Why is it a library’s job to facilitate drug use?
Maybe you are amalgamating all of the replies to your comment into one user, but I don’t know why you’re so aggressive… I don’t think I attacked you in any way.
I’m not sure why you are taking what I said so personal… Are you a councilman?
Edit: Damn that was a quick edit, I could have sworn your comment was much different when I replied. Now mine just looks like nonsense.
To reply to your edited comment: I literally said they should have somewhere else to do it.
Why is it a library’s job to facilitate drug use?
Please go back and look at my initial reply, I literally said the opposite.
One homeless person decides to do drugs in front of the library. I guess we have to remove all the benches and make everything very inconvenient for everyone.
The one person does a thing so we have to take it away rule doesn’t apply to people with houses.
“Oh look somebody stabbed somebody to death with a knife. We better take all the knives away from everyone.” This would never happen.
What if a homemed person did drugs in the library (which probably happened statistically)? Would you close up the library?
I guess I’m just saying this because you feel like the act was some how moral, I’m telling you it’s not. That’s okay, real life can be tricky, but don’t kid yourself, removing those benches is anti-homeless behavior.
You don’t have to take the blame personally for it, just own it. But if you don’t admit that you’re part of the problem, then that’s pretty bad.
One homeless person decides to do drugs in front of the library. I guess we have to remove all the benches and make everything very inconvenient for everyone.
That is not even close to what happened. Why are you just making shit up? Also, see my replies to others about how the library you hate is doing much more than you personally could ever possibly do to help the homeless.
What do you mean, “See my replies”? Do you think people get paid to post on here? If you had something you wanted to add, add it to your initial comment. I don’t have all day.
Sorry my dude, doing a bunch of other stuff for homeless, doesn’t absolve you of anything. You do good stuff for homeless, great! Plus 20 points to Gryffindor. You take away benches, not great. - one point to Gryffindor.
I’m sorry my dude you got to deal with the negative one and why you got it.
Again, this doesn’t make you a bad person to remove benches, what makes you a bad person is doing s*** like pretending you’re not part of the problem. It’s fine. I’m part of the problem too. The problem is systemic.
I think any fair interpretation of his info is that the homeless are given all sorts of reasonable accommodations even at that library including places to sit and rest, but they still sometimes elected to use an inappropriate space even while being given a choice.
Like if you built a whole guest house in your yard open to homeless and they leave it empty and break into your living room instead. You wouldn’t be anti homeless because you wanted them in the well equipped shelter with beds and sofas instead of your couch.
I think you’ve missed my point. I am not pro let homeless do whatever they want. I never claim to be that.
I am pro, if you take benches away from everyone because of a homeless person. You should own that.
It doesn’t make anyone a bad person, because everyone takes away stuff from homeless people. It’s a systemic problem.
But if you pretend that you had no choice, or that it was the right thing to do, then you’re full of shit.
It’s like if a politician gets caught insider trading. Yeah, everyone does it. Does that mean it’s a good idea to stand up and say “I had no choice”? No you stand up and say " I did it, everyone does it, it’s not right. It makes us a lot of money. Let’s have a conversation about it."
Okay, well since you’re lazy, I’ll help you:
The library allows homeless people to be inside it from open to close. They give them free internet. They give them free help filling out necessary government forms. They hang around just to chat. They allow homeless people to sleep outside all around the building. They are literally building a shower and a washer/dryer facility in the new auxiliary library free for anyone to use.
In America, your local public library does more to help homeless people than anything you have probably done yourself, but I guess since they haven’t personally solved the problem, they’re the worst of the oppressors.
And:
As I told someone else- homeless people can be in the library from open to close. They can sleep on library property. They have free access to all library services including free internet, help accessing all kinds of government aid, and just having someone to talk to them if they’re lonely. In another branch, the library is putting in a shower and a washer/dryer for anyone to use for free.
But yes, they took away a few benches because of problem people rather than calling the cops.
Not that it will help, since I didn’t remove anything. I made it clear from the top that my wife is the one work works at this library. You’re not only too lazy to read other people’s responses, you’re too lazy to read what you’re responding to.
But please prove me wrong and tell me how you’ve done so much more for the homeless than this and other public libraries. Go for it.
I’m surprised that someone who has a wife who’s done so much for homeless doesn’t understand the very basic point I’m trying to make.
Your wife doesn’t absolve herself of removing benches by doing a million things for the homeless. It doesn’t work that way. It has never worked that way. And it will never work that way.
Pretending that it does, does not help homelessness. It hurts it big time. It hurts homelessness way more than removing benches. Because you are pretending that you can take anything away from them as long as you make up for it in other ways. By your metric not by theirs.
Also I never said I did a lot for homeless people. I think I volunteered at a food bank once. But I never took anything away from them. But I am still part of the problem like everyone else is.
Apparently except for you, You’re a special birthday boy who has a wife that does a lot of stuff for homeless people.
Good job not responding to almost anything I said. It proves you don’t read.
I read it all, I only responded to the parts that I felt were worth responding to. The rest was hot garbage from somebody who’s a special birthday boy.
I saw a homeless guy verbally harass a woman on the subway until she cried. Then the guy started a fight with a black guy.
Most people are just fed up with crazies on public transportation. We don’t give a shit about the reasons, we want a solution that doesn’t take decades to solve.
Not sure how getting rid of benches stops people from fighting.
Being an asshole is not related to whether or not you have a home.
The point is that the problem you’re looking for an instant solution for, was decades in the making and has to do with a structural neglect of mental health care, housing problems and war on drugs.
You say you don’t give a shit about the reasons, but it’s much like ignoring every warning light and than complaining it’s expensive to fix the car.
We are not ignoring it, but there is no end in sight. Especially with Trump coming. So be less judgemental because most ny subway riders do not care at this point and just want to ride in peace while being judged by people like you
I’m not judging anyone. I thinks the shit is hitting the fan everywhere, also where I live. It’s fucking hard and it’s annoying that so many get manipulated into voting against it own interests.
The only remedy is too cling together and stick to it values. The apathy cannot win. We can’t put our heads in the sand and go along blaming other people for our troubles (whichever race/creed/other).
Right, because homeless people won’t just sleep on the floor. removed they’ll sleep anywhere with a roof where they won’t be bothered, let alone a place with walls and basic heating/AC. Filthy liars! Why the fuck is America so hostile towards its citizens and why do they just take it?
where they won’t be bothered
so you’re saying we need to employ people to specifically bother them. thanks for your suggestion, and please feel free to use our suggestion box if you have more ideas.
Not what I said. That is a logical extrapolation of a measure that would actually target the homeless as opposed to public transit users. An extrapolation you made. Don’t strawman me you dishonest asshat!
The best way to fight homeless people is always to prevent their growth, aka making livable/affordable cities. Look at the Netherlands or nordic countries for referee (as almost fucking always…).
Tho that’s not what my comment was about, I was just pointing out that this shit clearly targets the average transit user, while barely affecting the homeless. It’s unprovoked hostility for no rhyme or reason! People should be fined or lose jobs for this!
That comment was a joke, they were imitating the sarcasm of the original reply to the subway, from the point of view of an anti-homeless organization only looking to “deal” with the homeless, perhaps using your comment as an excuse to do so.
Honestly hard to tell what level of sarcasm we’re on. As in either, “Haha, that’s how they would reply” or jokingly dismissing what I said as stupid/hypocritical with my sentence twisted. People here usually use “/s” to denote that the prior wasn’t serious.
the “use our suggestion box” wasn’t so much a hint as a giant sign in flashing neon lights
You’d be surprised how many people talk like that. It’s a common way to make fun of someone.
Unfortunately, adding a cringey “/s” takes all the fun out of sarcasm. It’s better not to flag it and let the reader be responsible for detecting the sarcasm, at the cost of occasionally being misunderstood.
are you ok dude
Homeless don’t feed the capitalist engine.
Give them homes and bring back the benches. Problem solved.
Yeah, but what about Joe Boomer who is bitter about working a dead end job for 40 years? He can’t just sit back and do nothing as other people receive things that he didn’t!
He’s stuck in a shit mortgage, so that means you need to be too. Otherwise you live under a bridge.
Why not just turn one of the unused states in the middle into a giant homeless colony?
For the price of bread, water and heroin, you’ll never be bothered by them again.
Isn’t that how we got the mormons, oklahoma, and… And shudder AUSTRALIA?
We can just set up reservations in unused land in Oklahoma for those that don’t own land. /S
Totally agree… Ignoring the homeless won’t make the issue go away… No one wants to live in the streets especially when you are in a Nordic country… We see in Montreal cases of poor souls who froze to death … It is really tragic when it happens…
As someone who has had to confront homeless people with questionable mental health and/or sobriety; it’s fucking hard. You want a safe space for them but then quickly that space becomes unsafe for everyone around. But also… it isn’t hard just fucking talk to them. I have many times Don’t stop being smart but stop being afraid. Fear of the other breeds so much hate and misery
Oh if it isn’t obvious I support benches in public spaces and heavily condemn anti-houseless architecture/city planning
Hey so you know, “condone” is to allow or accept a practice otherwise considered bad or unacceptable which I think is not what you meant here. It sounds like you want to say something like “condemn anti-houseless architecture/city planning” unless I’ve misinterpreted your meaning.
Thank you for your gentle correction, you got my meaning correct
In months of being homeless and staying at a shelter I really got into it 3 times. Was almost hit by drivers 30+ times. I can’t even figure out how to be legitimately angry at homeless people when, for example, there are cars on the road. Being hit and pushed into the road by a dumb removed on her phone is 100x worse than a screaming match.
I just don’t care about “soft” people who have it tough because they need to deal with homeless people occasionally.
Examples: Using crosswalk by bus station when a young woman drives nearly into me, looks up from her phone, no indication of humanity - just staring blankly.
I flipped off / called cops stupid motherfuckers for stopping in the crosswalk forcing me into the main road (I’ve been nearly hit multiple times walking behind a car in the blind spot.)
I’ve kicked cars that have cut me off. I’ll be using a crosswalk and people who drive seem to be too stupid to make a left and look for people walking. Luckily I never spun myself.
I’ve dented multiple hoods by slamming my fist into cars / trucks as they fly up the inside and skid into the crosswalk.
I’ve knocked people’s mirrors, although sadly it’s hard to break them as they just fold, so you have to really slam them.
This is just traffic. One of the worst things when you’re homeless, but it’s not the only thing.
It’s just so much worse dealing with “normal” people. The system turns us into fucking heartless monsters. A homeless person is much less of a negative force on the world. It’s you, it’s me who are trash. We’re hurting them way more.
Edit: one time I was out early and stepped into the street with a thud. A man across the street gets pissed for stepping on his shoe. Screaming, possibility of a fight… that’s what I got from homeless / drug addicts. Much less depressing, degrading, etc. than when you’re forced to interact with the homeful.
Based on the context, I’m assuming you meant condemn, not condone…
Absolutely, thank you for the catch!
Doublethink is so damn prevalent and cognitive dissonance is heavily encouraged.
It’s just impossible to tell anymore.
We have the solution and it’s not very hard. Have social workers maintain these areas. It’s really not that expensive, employs people, builds important social vibe and allows you to have your benches.
It’s a solved problem.
Social workers in the area and neighbourhood police would defintly help and do more good than anti-homeless desasters. But I don’t think it solves the drug , alcohol and mental-health neglect problem. There has to be more societal work done for that, you won’t solve that in situ.
neighbourhood police
The day when USSA reinvents USR Militsiya is near.
neighbourhood police
At this point (in the US), I would never trust the police to do this correctly. We’d need an entirely new type of public servant. Which I’m all for. Then maybe we can slowly phase police out until they only exist for extreme cases.
Bruh, these people will sleep anywhere. The floor of a place with a roof, walls and heating is a fucking dream, even if the places doesn’t have benches. This is just borderline hostility towards regular people using public transit.
Remove the floor.
You joke, but they literally put spikes on shit so people can’t sit/lay down on them.
I’m imagining nothing but monkey bars over a bottomless pit between the subway entrance and the yellow strip by the train doors.
Only the strongest can exist.
Let homeless people have benches and public restroom access, it’s the absolute bare minimum we can do.
Can we though? Are you thinking of the shareholders at all?!? Someone’s going to have a tough time having only 4 holiday homes to choose from… 😬
JUST 4? ARE YOU INSANE?
First of all two of those are under a cold front right now, and one of them is having maintenance done in the West courtyard (noisy from 3pm-3:30pm if you are within 6 bedrooms of it, which I assure you, we won’t be) and the fourth one we were just at 2 years ago so it’s a little much to vacation there again that soon.
Please think before you speak.
My apologies and condolences for any tribulations my thoughtfulness may have bestowed upon you. In my haste to protect my interests and that of my colleagues, i spoke before fully considering the gravity of my statements 🫠
My people will contact your people for an appropriate settlement.
😂😂
Generally the only thing I think about shareholders is feeding them into a grinder feet first.
It’s the NYC Subway. It’s not a company, it’s government mass transit. They had big problems with homeless people harassing people and the cops weren’t doing much. Ridership was dropping. So they did the only thing they could do.
It sucks, but what do you expect from the subway? A solution to homeless people? It’s for getting people to where they want to go, not for being a shelter.
Keep the benches, and pressure the system to help house and treat the underlying issues of homelessness.
New York City already provides shelter space for anyone who asks. It’s the city’s obligation according to the state constitution. (This is one reason why so many migrants came to NYC.) The homeless people in the subway system generally don’t want to go to a shelter.
As for treating the underlying issues: many of these people are either schizophrenics or drug addicts. There’s no straightforward treatment for either condition.
Guess that solves it, then. Good chat.
If the solution was as easy as you think it is, someone would have already done it.
It doesn’t make profits, that’s why people haven’t done it. They’ll bend over backwards to help if it’s insanely profitable. Short term profits, to be exact
Taking Benches away is LITERALLY the ONLY Option! How can you Expect Police Officers to do anything when there’s FARE JUMPERS that need to be SHOT!
The fact that anyone disagreed with you is a sign of how problematic this country is.
“this country”
Which?
The one that contains the NYC metro.
The problem is this only works in areas where the homeless aren’t a majority of drug addicts. In North America this is infeasable they will piss and leave syringes everywhere. This just creates avoidable work for the people cleaning out this stuff.
Then you don’t want to remove benches. You want, at very least, some kind of shelter system, Supervised Injection Sites, and an adequate social security and healthcare system to support those that are ready to quit their addiction.
Removing the benches from public transport stations just spreads out the problem.
It’s so fucking annoying when people say shit like this as if other countries (even some cities in the US) haven’t had this figured out for years at this point. Do like the minimum amount of research.
If only we would think of things to help house the homeless, instead of seeing them as a nuisance.
Oh no! You mean the city will have to employ more janitors?!? The horror!!
Totally fucked up and i hope someone in NY with a mobility issue files an ADA complaint with this easy online form
Nice link, too bad it’ll probably start 404ing in 2 months :(
Won’t homeless people just sleep on the ground now?
You seem to assume that any logic or reason was used in the decision making that led to this action. But I assure you, as soon as racism, classism, or any other form of bigotry enters the process, any reason left jumps out of the window.
Marvelously constructed.
The bare ground is way colder than a bench, since air is a good thermal insulator.
Homeless people are desperate. They’ll sleep outside on the fucking pavement if it has an overhang and nobody bothers them. A place with walls and heating is fucking precious to em.
Is that how that works? I’m not trying to be antagonistic or anything, I just heard the opposite is true when it comes to why bridges develop ice sooner than typical roadways do; because the ground holds more heat than the cold air does
The reason bridges form ice before roads is that they are exposed to cold air on all sides and have lower total thermal mass, so conduction from the bridge to the air allows the temperature of the bridge surface to drop faster. The ground has nearly infinite thermal mass, and it takes a long(er) time for ambient air temperature to affect the surface temperature.
When you say “the ground holds more heat” you’re talking about that thermal mass. The temperature of the air is colder than the temperature of the ground, so yes from that perspective it “holds more heat.” But the temperature of a human is much much higher than the ground, and conduction is an extremely effective way to pull heat out of a human.
Yep! Slept on benches, chairs, and the ground when I was homeless. The ground is the worst for temperature (I’m technically homeless again, but at a shelter in a bed).
I hope things turn around for you soon.
It’s essentially the same thing, just on opposite ends. the ground leeches heat from warm bodies because it’s big and cool. A bridge freezes first because there isn’t ground that also has to freeze. Both are insulated from the ground, but one is hotter and one is colder than the ground temperature.
A bridge will change temperature faster, because the ground had a lot of thermal mass, but concrete will conduct heat away from your body much faster than wood will, assuming both are at the same temperature.
We all suffer but the already disenfranchised suffer the most. Sounds fair. Or does it?
This is a classic. One of the biggest burns of all time. 👌
deleted by creator
Well, there’s quite a bit more to it than that. An acre of land a hundred miles from a population center is essentially useless to someone without the money to build a dwelling with utilities or to obtain food
It’s essentially useless to most people with the money to do those things too.
deleted by creator
Which part of protist’s statement implied any of what you said?
deleted by creator
The point is that you went from 0-100 and implied that someone who clearly shows compassion towards the unhoused is calling for the bulldozing of tent camps, which is an extremely traumatic and sad thing that isn’t funny.
Also, on top of you explaining why they’re compassionate, I feel I deserve an explanation as to why you think I’m not.
No one owes you shit.
deleted by creator
Bruh, I work in homeless services. Egad man, get a grip
I “cherry picked a plot of land 100 miles from a population center” because that’s where the vast majority of the federally-owned land is, out west in the middle of nowhere.
I said absolutely nothing about my opinions on what policies can be instituted to alleviate homelessness and associated issues, because my only point was that your idea is dumb. I work full time in homeless services and live and breathe bettering unhoused people’s lives. I have no idea why you’re directing anger at everyone here, at people who don’t disagree in any way with your actual criticism of the problem of homelessness in the US, but you should probably explore it with a therapist.
You don’t even need to go that far (though this is not an argument in favour of the government keeping a deathgrip on that land) - in the USA, like in pretty much every developed nation (and many others, I’m sure) there are more empty houses than there are homeless people in need of them.
What you neglect to take in to account is that homelessness is 100% a deliberate and essential part of capitalism. Homelessness is the threat of what will happen to you if you don’t sell your labour for whatever the capitalists decide it’s worth, and it must remain present and visible at all times to maintain that power.
Homelessness isn’t being solved because those in power need it, not because there is any shortage of anything at all (homes, food, money, community support - all exist in abundance and yet are controlled and manipulated to create artificial scarcity to maximise profits).
deleted by creator
I also just want to add that being an anarchist, one of the most common responses we get from people who aren’t to our ideas (that are almost all entirely outside of the box capitalism forces us to think within), is basically “that’s not a perfect solution therefore it isn’t worthy of any attention or consideration”, as if the current system is perfect (E: or they’ve taken the time to properly understand our views in the first place).
I would class it as part appeal to tradition in defence of cognitive dissonance, part being so heavily indoctrinated they’re incapable of even imagining a society that functions in any other way but the current (even though how we live now is an insignificant blip in the timeline of human history), so their instinct is to reject anything that threatens the (patently false) sense of security they get from what they know (which in this case, includes shit like dropping homeless people on an empty plot and expecting them to be grateful, which is why they mistakenly assumed that’s what you meant).
deleted by creator
I can’t speak for the people who downvoted you (I didn’t even see that thread since I had the first person to reply blocked, so I had to go in private browser to check it out), I don’t think you’re being callous, you made a valid point, and I’m sure you didn’t mean we should just dump homeless people on empty plots of land and call it a day, but also provide all the other things that person pointed out would be needed. I think maybe some people just don’t see providing the other necessities as an obvious, or even acceptable part of your suggestion, but that is a different matter for them to explain, since I can’t.
Either way, try not to take downvotes to heart, they’re just anonymous internet pixels, they don’t actually matter (E: though I definitely understand how they can be discouraging and even confusing at times).
Complaining about downvotes? That’s a downvote.
Adding nothing to the discussion? Believe it or not, downvote.
The government doing council housing would probably go really well
It’s not a train station platform’s job to solve all of society’s problems. During rush hour a train station platform is extremely overcrowded. It’s a serious issue and one of the top reasons people choose to avoid transit, which makes climate change dramatically worse.
Hostile architecture in parks and other open spaces and actual fucking housing is where you should be spending your lobbying effort.
Yeah, and some people want or need to sit.
Yeah, it’s the people who own that train station platform! And that’s… oh, the government.
Or anywhere. They have the influence, they can use that and their resources to help create real change.
