• ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yeah gotta love the American approach.

    Have a problem?

    Don’t talk about it! 🤫 Hide it! Pretend it doesn’t exist! Shoot it, arrest it, prosecute it, imprison it. Make a profit from it! Blame political party for it!

    Wonder why the problem never goes away 🤔 fashion elaborate conspiracy theories. Complain about it!

    Repeat.

    American society and governance is thoroughly dysfunctional and that’s why it’s a failure.

  • shimdidly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Isaiah 3

    14 The Lord will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses.

    15 What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord God of hosts.

    • eggmasterflex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Also Deuteronomy 15:

      7 If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor.

      8 You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be.

      9 Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, “The seventh year, the year of remission, is near,” and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt.

      10 Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake.

      11 Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”

      • Chr0nos1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        If you’re going to follow the Bible, make sure you’re not picking and choosing the parts you want to follow. If the commands from your god are that important, you can’t ignore half of them.

        2 Kings 6:28-29 But then the king asked, “What is the matter?” She replied, “This woman said to me: ‘Come on, let’s eat your son today, then we will eat my son tomorrow.’ So we cooked my son and ate him. Then the next day I said to her, ‘Kill your son so we can eat him,’ but she has hidden her son.

        Psalm 137:9 Blessed the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rock: the children represent the future generations, and so must be destroyed if the enemy is truly to be eradicated

        Leviticus 25:44-46 “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

        1 Timothy 2:11-12
        “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

        • Sophocles@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Your quotations seem to be heavily paraphrased, and are really taken out of context from the original stories. These are also not commandments, but rather things that happened in history and were a part of the culture at the time, thus there isn’t really any moral law to “follow” in these verses in the first place.

          Not really looking to argue, just adding context.

  • Crampon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Different take on the bench. The dividers allows for the pregnant and the disabled to sit. Which I believe is more important than letting some homeless sleep on that particular bench.

    • Zacryon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      You can have those arm handles at the ends of benches without being dividers, accommodating both, people with movement problems and homeless people who need a spot to sleep.

      • Crampon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        So you’re supposed to sit on the homeless person as if they were some piece of cloth?

        Ok.

        • gallopingsnail@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Because as we all know, without dividers every bench in the city would have a homeless person sleeping on it 24 hours a day non-stop, never allowing anyone to sit down ever again.

          • Crampon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            No they won’t. They will only sleep there the exact moment someone with a disability isn’t nearby. They can sense people in need. So they wake up and leave the premises. Right?

            This comment section is literally insane.

            • colon_capital_D@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Damn, you hate homeless people so much, you’re using pregnancy and disabled people as an excuse. Just say you don’t like homeless people, it’s easier

              • Crampon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Incredible cognitive decay. Case study right here. Weaponized degenerative genes.

                I actually believe in housing the homeless. And making sure infrastructure is available with bare minimum annoyance to the average person.

                I live in a country often praised by leftist ideologist in the US. You eat posts like this as cocaine glazed meth.

                You are not able to carry two thoughts at the same time. Pure fuel for the conservatists in your country.

                • gallopingsnail@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Dawg, slow down for a minute.

                  In your first comment, you say the extra armrests are there to keep “some homeless” (not even a homeless PERSON) off the bench for disabled individuals. You’re saying that benches should have these installed because seating disabled people is more important than letting “some homeless” use it for a night’s rest.

                  When others point out that a bench with armrests at the ends and no dividers could be used by both groups, you say “bUt YoU hAvE tO SiT oN tHe hOmELeSs” as if 2 people can’t use a bench at the same time. It’s a bench, not a chair, that’s the whole point. What are you even arguing here, that if homeless people are allowed to use benches that they’ll all be occupied, and they all will refuse to move, and we’ll have to sit on the unhoused? Absolutely preposterous.

                  And then, when all this is pointed out to you, you say the rest of us have “degenerative” genes and can’t hold 2 thoughts at the same time. Really? That’s straight up far right rhetoric, bringing up the inferior genes shit.

                  Yes, unhoused people should absolutely have a place to go, but we don’t need to build our cities to be hostile towards them.

                  TLDR: Go the fuck outside, get some help, go for a walk, call your mom, hell, even go talk to a homeless person, touch grass. I’m done with Lemmy for today, you should be too.

  • Lemminary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Somehow, treating vulnerable people with dignity by helping them out without strings attached helps our society overall. Who would’ve thought.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      But conservatism requires a lesser people to scapegoat and oppress. Could we perhaps criminalize homelessness, and instead of housing we imprison them, so I feel satisfied that they’re being punished for their god given misfortune?

      • olivebranch@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        It is ironic that you are scapegoating republicans for this political failure of liberals, who also support the policies that are the cause of these issues.

        Liberals also support prioritization of private property laws over personal living standards.

        Only socialists support prioritizing human well-being and socialism is a bad word in the US.

  • JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    What happens when those people leave the housing provided and leave because they want their freedom to move around and be on the street again?

    • olivebranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      That is perfectly fine. You don’t need to force people to live in a house if they don’t want to. But kinda hard not to want to be in a warm house during freezing Finland winters.

  • Auli@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    But they didn’t solve it. They are doing something but there are still homeless people. Looks like their plan of action is definitely better though.

    • olivebranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t know the exact way they are enforcing this, but if there are still homeless people then either there are some preconditions to apply or people want to be homeless or government can’t afford to house everyone.

      In the first case, preconditions shouldn’t exist, everyone deserves to not freeze to death. In the second case, there is no real problem, if someone doesn’t want to live in a house, than they should be allowed to not live in a house. And in third case, you can’t have millioners and billioners and tell the country you just don’t have money to house the homeless, tax them and build homes.

  • PatFusty@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    A lot of homeless people choose to be homeless. I remember I was talking to a homeless in downtown Los Angeles and he told me he used to be a housing contractor and was a millionaire. He said he preferred the street because he likes the drugs and likes to harass women with impunity. I was also told by other homeless that they don’t like the housing projects and prefer being outside.

    Edit: you can downvote me all you want but this is my experience. Sure there are many that want to be in homes but they also want no strings attached honestly for free like if they are babies.

    • olivebranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      That sounds like an excuse for him. He is a drug addict, he doesn’t really have a choice. First you get people of the streets, then you give them treatment for drugs. People in high stress situations are far more likely to get and stay addicted.