"Homeless" is a lie
ObjectivityIncarnate @ damnedfurry @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 601Joined 1 yr. ago
ObjectivityIncarnate @ damnedfurry @lemmy.world
Posts
0
Comments
601
Joined
1 yr. ago
I think you've misunderstood my position, based specifically on something I'll quote later in this comment.
Somewhat ironic that the juxtaposition in the article is between an area of California and Texas, with the latter arguably taking the more progressive approach.
Too much emphasis is put on requiring the treatment as conditional for the housing.
For the record, I never believed in or advocated for this approach. I pushed back against specifically the implication that you can just throw these people into some sort of housing and now you can consider the problem "solved" and wipe your hands of it.
I definitely agree that the path to a long-term solution is taking that multi-faceted approach that tackles those root causes simultaneously. None of them should be conditional upon the others, and I believe that each one of them improving empowers the individual to be more capable of improving all the others. It's much more efficient than trying to 100% solve one thing, and ignoring everything else until that one thing is completely eradicated, not only on efficacy, but in resources required.
Cathy?
You did a pretty good impression of her with the "so you're saying" followed by something not even close to what I was saying, so I called a spade a spade. If you don't like it, try arguing in good faith and honestly instead of strawmanning.
So I'll assume you're also not arguing in good faith either
Projection.
I wouldn't say this contradicts anything I said, really. I don't disagree with any of this.
I bristled specifically at the ridiculously glib and reductive "solve homelessness" line. People love to think issues like these are things that have simple obvious solutions that no one thought of before their enlightenment came along and deigned to bless the rest of us.
What does it matter about the exact dollar amount?
If it's an amount that exceeds the means of the person you're complaining isn't paying for it, it's pretty relevant, don't you think?
The top 3 wealthiest people in the US could provide housing, sanitation and food for every single homeless person in the US and still be multi-billionaires.
This is literally false. The combined total net worth of the three richest in the US (~$800 billion) is less than the US government spends on welfare EVERY YEAR (over $1 TRILLION), lol.
Hell, even that nonsensical $20 billion figure put forth was ANNUAL, not one-time, so even IF we used that figure for the sake of argument, and even IF you could wave a magic wand and convert all of Musk's net worth straight into cash 1:1, it STILL would barely last 10 years. Then what?
You have no idea of the magnitude of the cost of solving this problem. Stop writing as if you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't.
So we shouldn't house them unless and until we figure out all of the complex issues?
That's what's being said there: homelessness is not something we should do anything about
No, Cathy, that's not what was said.
The fact of the matter is that we know what happens when we provide shelter without anything else. It doesn't last and you're right back where you started before you know it. After all, it's that stuff that is the reason they became homeless in the first place.
If you don't address the other stuff, 'just give them a house lol' literally doesn't work long-term. That's the reality.
Doesn't matter if it costed $20bn or $200bn, Musk still has more.
It costs more than he has, so yes, it does matter. Even the bogus $20b figure was an ANNUAL figure, not one-time.
You have no sense of perspective of the monumental costs of solving problems like these. It is far beyond the means of even the wealthiest individual on the planet.
Did you know the US spends over $1 trillion (with a T) every year on welfare programs? And that's without 'solving' anything, just trying to treat symptoms.
Get a clue.
Are they less deserving to be out of the elements because they have an addiction?
That's not what's being said. He is criticizing the fact that so many people assume that 'just give them a place to live' is the solution, when it's much, much more complicated than that. In that way, "homeless" is very reductive, and masks those other issues, in favor of making it look like it's a simple problem with a simple solution.
Very few long-term homeless people are homeless simply because they can't afford a place to live.
It is in fact not remotely true. You're being downvoted by gullible fools who will believe anything that helps keep their rage boner going, no matter how ridiculous.
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
It would cost $20 billion to end homelessness in America.
Bullshit. Hope you guys don't seriously believe this.
Edit: it really underscores the mentality of the community when a straightforward debunking of a false statement has a negative score, lol.
Hater Ed
And millions of "smarts" were so "smart" that they decided they didn't need to vote again after 2020, and as a result, the "dumbs" are in power.
So who's really dumb, here?
It’s also surprising how the pro life and pro death penalty people are the same people usually.
It shouldn't be. There is actually no contradiction or mutual exclusivity between the two; it only seems that way because of how the former viewpoint is labeled (it was definitely a PR move to call it "pro life" instead of "anti abortion", which is a more accurate description of the stance).
Pro lifers believe the unborn are morally equivalent to the newly born, and therefore believe killing/destroying (depending on your perspective) the unborn is equivalent to murder (defined as 'undeserved killing/execution'), since the unborn is innocent by definition. And because they, like everyone else, believe murder is immoral, they also believe abortion is immoral.
This does not conflict at all with being in favor of the death penalty for someone guilty of a major crime against humanity, because such a person is not innocent, unlike the unborn child.
In fact, on another axis, these two stances are actually in perfect alignment (except in cases of rape, etc. which I believe is why many pro lifers do in fact make exceptions for those cases, being okay with abortion then), in that they both come from the mindset of 'you must take responsibility and be held accountable for your actions'.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
Okay, "commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com", lol.
You should admit you're fucking around instead of insisting you actually believe that nonsense though, lol. You've already been caught.
Doesn't make sense to compare a rate of an outcome (without even knowing how often that outcome was sought) with an individual attempt whose outcome is not even known yet.
When Mangione IS actually given the death penalty, this 'argument' will actually amount to something. Dumb until then.
Okay, you let the mask slip too much, now I know you're just trolling, lol.
Wrong. All X are Y does not imply all Y are X.
It is racist to say "White people are Z", period. If 100% of Z are white people, that changes nothing.
This is very basic logic you're failing at. Think about it.
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
He did a lot more than just convince Trump.
But he didn't do either of the two things the headline claims he did, so, again, my point stands.
You uhh aren't doing yourself any favors taking that already-debunked 20B figure seriously.
And a couple of years ago, it shrank by $182 billion.
Stop treating net worth like it's an amount of cash. It isn't.