this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
1238 points (97.5% liked)

Political Memes

5428 readers
2720 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes 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 misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow 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
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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)

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

None of these are a simple desire to be unhoused.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

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

Yes, they were. They were saying that for a majority, they simply don't want a home.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A large part of the problem is that many don’t want help.

Facts not every unhoused person wants to be housed

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

That is not even close to "for a majority, they simply don’t want a home".

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, so we need to be offering more than just housing, but rather a whole package.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah? I don't think I, of anyone else, proposed only housing ever.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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"

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

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.