Don’t worry everyone, I’m sure someone somewhere is worse and that makes this okay somehow.
A society’s greatness can only be measured by how they treat their most vulnerable citizens.
You mean the worse they treat them the greater the greatness, right? Like Sparta, right bro?
People who say this are free to let the homeless sleep on their couch or in their yard, but they won’t.
what in the actual fuck is wrong with you?
Well would you? You agree they need a place to sleep, so would you let one crash on your couch? And if not, it means you actually want them to sleep on the street, so you’d rather the street and pavement be comfy, so you can feel somehow charitable, that you’ve made it easier for a homeless person to sleep outside, or on someone else’s property, instead of just offering them some of your own space.
absurdism ergo hoc. I work with local homeless and have helped build tiny houses for the local homeless communities. Our goal is to provide housing so that people can access services critical to breaking the cycle of homelessness. a few weeks on my couch isn’t going to change someone’s life; a few months in a stable community with access to public services - to get them ID, to get them treatment for addiction, to get them job skills and financial aid - these are the things that change a life.
You’re so damned certain you have everything figured out, when you’re simply in the dark… mumbling to yourself, head up your own rectum.
It’s got to be an absolutely wild experience going through life thinking there is no middle ground between inviting strangers (many of whom are dealing with addiction or untreated mental illness) to sleep with you and your children and putting spikes and bars on all publicly accessible places to make life harder for those suffering the most.
I’m guessing you love factory farming, animal abuse, migrant abuse, and child labor since you eat food?
I’m a vegetarian and native, don’t lecture me on your people’s atrocities and put them on me, colonizer.
I am just applying your own logic to you. You eat vegetables that were almost certainly picked by underpaid Central Americans and wear clothes that were fabricated in sweat shops made from fabrics harvested by children. If you’re living on a reservation funded by a casino, you’re likely benefiting from the drug trade or human trafficking as well. I’m as responsible for colonization as you are for the tribes that decided to help with the colonization for short-term gain. I acknowledge the atrocities of my ancestors - my family was also on the wrong side of the civil war. I also acknowledge that, despite having 1st nation’s heritage, I don’t present as native so I enjoy all the continuing privilege of whiteness. We ALL need to acknowledge that we can’t help but participate in systemic injustice, even if we’re fighting against it.
No human is illegal.
The irony
“Women’s rights are human rights.” ** ** Doesn’t include homeless women.
Great! If the spikes weren’t inclusive trans people might feel excluded from the ban of sleeping on them
/s
How can it be that people don’t realize how badly faked this is and what position it is trying to sneak through?
You’re at the top of my comment chain, so I’m replying to agree with you and take this further.
Whoever photoshopped this and the other one with the park bench that’s floating around is trying to pit liberals against each other by making it seem like fighting for trans rights and fighting to house the unhoused are opposed to each other.
For anyone reading this, don’t fall for it.
Sure, except I’m in California where it is two very different fights. Try reversing any LGBTQ Rights and you’ll get tarred and feathered. Suggest the Homeless shouldn’t be hunted in the streets and you also get tarred and feathered.
It’s like living in reverse land where instead of “fiscal responsibility” and “traditional social values”; we have “fiscal responsibility” and “progressive social values”.
You mean you don’t believe that Hostile architecture exists? Or are you just saying that this specific example doesn’t?
This specific example is badly photoshopped
That’s not really the point, though.
Edit to elaborate: Whether or not this specific one is real, it perfectly illustrates the hypocrisy of trans ally neoliberals who persecute and punish unhoused people for existing near them.
If there were so many examples of this in the real world, then you wouldn’t need to photoshop one.
The French Revolution was well documented and people still enjoy A Tale of Two Cities
Are you saying we don’t need any fiction - novels, tv, movies, jokes, comics, memes… because there exists non-fiction versions?
I think you and the others trying to pass off the same idea don’t seem to understand the problem here. It’s not that you can’t have satire, or fiction that acts as a social commentary. It’s that all of the examples you are mentioning aren’t trying to pass themselves off as reality . Nobody reads A Tale of Two Cities and thinks that it is literal. Or A Modest Proposal. This here is trying to pass itself off as real and as soon as it gets called out for it, the choir shows up to say “Oh, so we can’t have satire anymore”.
Nice, anti homeless and anti disabled all at once (lack of streetside seating makes getting around challenging for mobility limited people)
And right below a “no human is illegal” poster
This window ledge is private property 🤓
LGBT identity is being exploited by assholes
They think LGBT is benefited by having more visibility. In reality it puts them center stage for anti-LGBT rhetoric and the world is more antagonistic. In the 90s nobody cared about the gays.
You both have a point and have a not point at the same time. LGBT is benefitted by more visibility, because it being denormalized harms people who are gay/trans/etc. In the 90s, gay marriage was illegal, participating in gay culture outside of specific establishments means risking confrontation with cops, and someone’s kid being gay was every parent’s worst nightmare (it still is for some people nowadays unfortunately). More visibility and pushing for more rights and the same integration into society that the “in-group” has naturally means that people who are higher in the hierarchy will throw a tantrum and start committing hate crimes and attacking the group and using them as a scapegoat. But making others angry is necessary if you want a disprivileged group to have the same accessibility and rights as the ruling group.
