• jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s also funny to me when people say they are Christian but don’t want to help the poor. The good Samaritan is very clear. So is the bit about the sheep and the goats.

    But you can use the Bible to justify anything, I guess.

    • Peck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m not Christian and I don’t want to see them. Also I didn’t consider housing them to be my job. That’s why we have government that we elect and pay taxes to in order to fund it. This is just bs sign that simply virtue signaling instead of asking hard questions.

        • Peck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Not well. I don’t know if you mean to imply something, but I live in Portland and our government is very liberal. And yes I voted for them. And yes they have solved absolutely nothing.

          • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            The notion of government being not your job, something you pay someone else to do, is a fallacy. And the notion that it can be that is fantasy. But even if that were the case, you’d be a chump to not at least demand in writing an undelivered service that you already paid for. We do have local council reps now.

            • Peck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Wtf? Government is my job when I vote for it based on their declared policies. Demand services in writing? What are you talking about? What country are you from?

              • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Government is my job when I vote for it based on their declared policies.

                Nope, that’s the fallacy again. Literally not the way that it actually works. You have to hold your reps feet to the coals. Interests that are opposite your own already understand this fact. You have to get involved at least at some minimal level, or you’ll never get what you want out of politics and will forever stay frustrated.

                Portlanders do struggle with this concept more than a lot of other urban Americans and I think it’s largely due to the fact that until a few months ago we were the only major city that didn’t have a city council. They look at me like I’m an alien, and ask things like what country am I from.

                • Peck@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I already have a job. I don’t need the second one. If I did, I would run for office myself.

  • But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have a cousin from a wealthy family who chooses to be homeless. He can’t be committed against his will and he doesn’t want the responsibility of just having a room in his parents house or with relatives.

    A lot of people have this idea that housing everyone will fix the people who just aren’t gonna do it without it being forced on them

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      One of the biggest issues when talking about homelessness is conflating the two different groups - people who are homeless through unfortunate circumstances, and people who are incapable of living in society. One side thinks all homeless are the former group, the other side thinks all homeless are the latter group. Truth is, both exist. You can’t take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. However, there ARE some homeless for whom that’s all they need.

      Ending homelessness requires a granular, personal approach. And that shit is EXPENSIVE.

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

        You’re just wrong. No granular approach is needed. It’s not complicated at all.

        Offer people housing without conditions and people do take it. Finland did this and it eliminated homelessness there.

        The cousin from a rich family “choosing” to be homeless over living with family is likely “choosing” that option because he doesn’t want to take harsh psychiatric medications, have a curfew of 9 PM in his 20s, and be criticized for going out to socialize. It’s likely the “choice” involves a rejection of extremely oppressive rules and he doesn’t have decent options.

        You can actually take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. Often that type of person chooses voluntarily to deal with some issues once housed. What you can’t do is take a schizophrenic drug addict and offer housing contingent upon really harsh anti-psychotics and weekly drug testing plus loss of housing if they don’t comply, administered by extremely expensive social workers who end up feeling like police. That is also what makes traditional programs so expensive.

        I often think people who think homelessness is a complex nuanced issue just want there to be homelessness or buy into upper class lies justifying homelessness which keep the lower classes fearful and obedient.