Of course people would rather homeless people have housing instead of living in tent cities everywhere. But they also don’t have any desire to pay for it when it comes time to do something and of course make moral arguments against the homeless.

These are two different groups of people

The first, who are on board with state housing projects, are the common people who still have empathy for their fellow people

The second, who are totally on board with homelessness because the housing projects are "too expensive", belong to the political and economic elite

[+] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, that cognitive dissonance doesn't exist, and is misleading.

[+] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most people aren't pieces of shit and don't want people to be homeless, but then they're unwilling to do anything to solve it because it requires money and effort.

Dishonest framing. The average worker has nothing to do with this issue. They are not the people we're asking to solve this. Like I already said, it's the political and economic elite. Capitalists. The state. Where is the worker's money supposed to be sent? On what is their effort to be put?

We also have internalized that a lot of homeless people "did something wrong" to get there, which doesn't help.

Yep, neoliberal chuds, as I said

You're trying to oversimplify a complex cultural issue

How? What variables have I abstracted into a black box, here? What few mechanisms have I reduced the issue to? To me, "people want affordable housing but don't wanna pay for it" sounds extremely oversimplified.

I have no idea why you're picking an argument with someone who probably largely agrees with you.

I'm not "picking an argument with you" lol. I'm just correcting what I see as a defeatist, "what can we even do" attitude.

That's not what cognitive dissonance means. It's a question of willpower/desire to actually help. No one wants people to be homeless but they also aren't willing to do anything about it. That's not cognitive dissonance.

Sounds like semantic fudging to me. "These people need homes! No, stop building homes, it's too expensive!!" sounds like cognitive dissonance to me.

[–] kittenbridgeasteroid@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's also the third group of people who realizes that homelessness is a complex problem that won't be solved by more housing.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's just a cop out. Of course it's complex. No reason to just throw your hands in the air and say "it's too hard, let's just leave it to the market". We already tried that. It led to this.

Also, no one is saying, literally, "building more houses will fix homelessness alone, nothing else needed, DURRR". That's just a strawman.

What we also need is a complete end to landlording. But this of course won't happen under the current system, because capitalism fucking worships private property.

[–] kittenbridgeasteroid@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The entire post is about low income housing as a solution to people sleeping in tents. Building more apartments won't stop people from living in tents.

Pointing out that it's a complex issue that isn't solved by more houses is pretty much the opposite of a strawman

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, that is not the point it's making. It's making the point that neoliberal chuds would prefer to see homeless people than affordable housing. It doesn't say that building housing itself is the sole solution. Hell, it doesn't say anything at all about building. We don't see any construction in that picture, the blocks are just there. You could read it as saying that already built flats should just be given to people.