this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
1238 points (97.5% liked)
Political Memes
5422 readers
3958 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is that really true? Answer that first.
Then, if so, answer this: why? That's an important question.
Do they just enjoy sleeping outside and being pissed on? Somehow I doubt it.
In addition to what the other guy said:
not wanting to give up drugs
not wanting to give up pets
not wanting to give up the support structure (services, charities, other homeless) that they've spent a long time building up
straight up mental incapacity to live by themselves (schizophrenia, etc)
None of these are a simple desire to be unhoused.
Sure, but no one was talking about that.
None of those things are cookies.
None of those things are Hegelian dialectics.
We could do this all day but I don't see the point.
Yes, they were. They were saying that for a majority, they simply don't want a home.
Oh yeah? Quote it.
That is not even close to "for a majority, they simply don’t want a home".
Housing first doesn't have to interfere with any of that. A reasonable home will allow you to have a pet. They'll need those support structures on the street or off, it wouldn't make sense to cut them off. Anyone with a mental health issue is ONLY going to have a better time with a safe, private space they can call their own, and housing first means there's no stipulation to getting off drugs, until you're ready.
Redefine housing as the FIRST step and not the pot of gold at the end of the societal expectation rainbow, and you'll get a lot further.
Yes, so we need to be offering more than just housing, but rather a whole package.
Yeah? I don't think I, of anyone else, proposed only housing ever.
Typically that's how the "housing first" schemes I've seen work. It would be political suicide for a group to condone drug use in their public housing, and financial suicide to allow dogs (insurance would drop them) for example.
It's rarely as simple as "just do this simple thing and you solve this giant systemic problem"
Then that's not housing first lol. Housing first means just that, housing FIRST. Before anything else. It's worked in some countries, off the top of my head Finland. People don't just get clean without safety, security, privacy, and dignity, and those things are practically impossible to achieve on the streets.
This is one of those things that, yeah, actually. If we did the obvious, simple, humanitarian thing it'd work out to be drastically better for like, everyone except maybe the most well-off. The problem, as you alluded to, isn't one of practicality but of politics.
Yes it is absolutely the case as I have seen in the thirty years I have volunteered with homeless shelters.
Typically it is PTSD that sometimes leads to violent responses that makes these people want to be unhoused. We have a lot of vets in my country, The USA, who aren't getting the mental health care they need. Some of these people are on the streets because they do not trust themselves around loved ones.
So, you get my point. It isn't just a desire to be on the street because they think it's cool and fun.
I never said it was
It's what you imply when you say they don't want a home.
No it isn't. That's bullshit you are adding on your own.
Sure, it isn't. "I don't want to" doesn't stand on its own. "I don't want to live in a house" implies that they prefer living outside of one.
You commented "So, you get my point. It isn’t just a desire to be on the street because they think it’s cool and fun."
And it is the second sentence that I was referring to when I stated "I never said it was "
There are unhoused people who do not want to live in a house.
Stop dancing around the fucking point. It isn't as simple as just not wanting a home. It's knowing they can't fucking manage the expenses and responsibility that are deliberately attached to owning a home. It's trying to own a home and failing.
Except it isn't trying and failing. In some cases they don't even know how to try. In other cases they can but only some of the times because they aren't always mentally stable.
It sounds like you think homelessness is because of individual failings and that isn't always the case.
You're either trolling me or replying to the wrong person. I'm the person arguing it isn't the result of individual decisions, in the face of people constantly telling me they're just choosing to be homeless. I have never once said it's the result of individual failings. I've been attacking the people that have.
Your last comment suggested these people were homeless because they couldn't manage the expenses which sounds like you are suggesting it is a personal failure. If your intention is otherwise then it is because you communicated your beliefs poorly not because Im trolling you.
They are unable to manage it because our economy has deliberately made it unmanageable. I have been consistently arguing against blaming them for their problems.
Also, two are involved in communication, the speaker and listener. That's two points of failure. I'm not the only one.
Yes but you are the one that is writing posts that very much sound like the opposite of what you are trying to say. That is why I am saying it is because of your writing.
Stop trying to gaslight me. At no point have I blamed them. Stop derailing the discussion with this needless and baseless accusation. We had been talking for 5 comments or so apiece before this derailment of yours, and I had been insistent on not blaming them. If for a moment you thought "hey he sounds like he's blaming them" there are two options:
1 - I have suddenly become a completely different person with completely different opinions
2 - You misinterpreted my words.
Im not trying to gaslight you. What you claim to intend is not what is necessarily being communicated and that has to do with your word choice. You consistently come across from the beginning like you are blaming them and not realizing that is what you are saying.
Im not misinterpreting your words. You aren't taking the time to read your post as if you weren't the writer. When your intention isn't being understood it is rarely the readers fault.
I accept that you don't think you are blaming them but can you see how claims these homeless people can't manage their finances to be able to remain housed sounds like you are blaming them?
That's your interpretation of what I said, not what I said.
I said "deliberately attached" for a reason. Did you perhaps... not read that part? Perhaps not understand?
I'm saying they lost a rigged game. Losing a rigged game is not your fault. The deliberately attached expenses and responsibilities are to blame here.
Capitalism is to blame.
Yeah, actually, it is. Saying any significant fraction of the homeless population wants to be homeless is at BEST ignorant, and most likely a smoke screen to distract from the actual discussion. You've yet to provide any rebuttal than "I've seen homeless people who didn't want housing!" And nothing supporting it.
No it's bullshit you are adding.
At least one of us is adding something to the conversation.