881
West Coast baby
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
881 points (93.8% liked)
solarpunk memes
2091 readers
761 users here now
For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Shelter is critical to survival. The general rule of thumb places it as a higher priority than food or water. Arguing against people having access to reliable shelter, regardless the rational, is arguing for deliberately killing them.
The "they're defective and will destroy whatever they live. Don't let them in!!!" is just calling them cockroaches in a different way. It's fear mongering nonsense and there is no evidence to support that claim.
You're assuming correlation does not equal causation. It turns out being homeless, even for a relatively short period of time, is devastating to mental health and even if not the root cause (IE genetic predeposition, TBIs, etc.) it can strongly exasperate them and create some nasty co-morbidities.
Being repeatedly assulted and or raided by police, neighborhood vigilantes and other desperate people is an extremely quick path towards PTSD/other general anxiety disorders. The aggressive de-humunization that occurs can be a potent factor in antisocial disorders. Direct health impacts like physical battery, hypo/hyperthermia, illness, etc. can cause more detect brain damage such as TBIs, etc. Schizophrenia is usually fairly treatable, schizophrenia with PTSD amplified paranoia much less so.
I'd like to point out that the second item is pointless. You're making an appeal to authority fallacy and referencing an article to support an opinion which doesn't need the reference. The portion that needs a reference (if you're gonna provide one) is the second part of the second point.
Here is a link to the CAUF society in reasons why homeless people may refuse to go to shelters.
I think that additional housing isn't really a solution to homelessness unless you give them unmitigated access. Pretty much, "It's free and you can do whatever you want."
The issue with homelessness isn't available space, we have tons of open office space where they could stay at night. The problem is that these places have rules and restrictions (no alcohol, no pets, curfew, etc).
For my own anecdote, there was a homeless guy who stayed by a gas station near my old apartment and I tried to check in on him from time to time and give him some money. He saved up his donations each day for a motel room and I asked him why he didn't save his money and go to the shelter or share a room with someone else to save money? He stated that he didn't like sharing a space with other people either in a shelter or as a roommate. The guy would rather sleep outside rather than share space.
The 2nd point is poorly worded, but the point wasn't to appeal to any authority, but rather that I understand it can be a bit of jump to understand how the rhetoric being parroted by the parsnipwitch is harmful and was trying to provide further reading on that. You are correct in that was not well communicated... my bad...
I can not prove a lack of evidence (proof of negative) which the original commenter agrees is true: https://feddit.de/comment/3535479
I would argue that unmitigated access is the correct way to go and that all of the reasons people experiencing homelessness refuse shelter are perfectly valid, rational, and sane reasons. If you disagree I would encourage you to spend a couple nights in an overnight shelter and get your perspective after.
Also, thank you for helping out gas station guy. I understand that wasn't the point of your anecdote and it might have felt pointless, but the ability to have a door that locks probably meant the world to him.
I certainly agree with the reasons why people don't seek help, but it should be acknowledged that they are turning away assistance which makes it difficult to help them fix their problems. Some of these reasons to turn away help are also more addressable than others. If someone is just mentally impaired (mental illness or mentally handicapped) we can't just force them to accept help.
The guy at the gas station was a part of my community and people knew him well. He wasn't a typical beggar and he was super honest. He would flat out tell you, "Hey I need some money for smokes or food." I'd rather give money to him than the 2 guys who stand at the intersection with signs everyday.
Unmitigated access probably would be the most successful solution, but if we follow the real world logical steps we also know that that wouldn't work either. Whether in major high density apartments or in single family houses funding for these properties has to come from somewhere, likely the government. The government is never going to pass legislation which just gives out homes to the homeless, they probably wouldn't even do it for low income workers who might be viewed as a better investment.
If we imagined that the government would do such a thing there are problems like maintenance costs, de facto ghettos, de facto red lining, and social discrimination. Sure, the government could address these things as well, but if we have to move to theory just to reach this point we know that's not going to happen. At a certain point the argument just moves to, "Well ________ country does xyz," without addressing the social and political differences from wherever that place is. To make these things possible in this way would require a completely different government and thus a completely different social disposition.
I'm all for social change and ending homelessness, but I think it's a waste of time pretending that the unrealistic is a solution. Saying just build and give away homes to end homelessness without the social disposition for that to happen is as naive as the right saying to just build a wall to stop illegal immigration.
This seems to be a general issue on Lemmy that people just love to put you into a group of people to start insulting them. You are so unhinged it's unreal.
Well, this seems to be a very ironic comment
No it is not. Tell me please where I said I was against giving people homes or that I was calling them cockroaches or similar.
This is a typical issue on Lemmy that people are overly aggressive and want to hate and bully others for no reason whatsoever.
I don't know what kind of crazy that is, but you find it here a lot. It's so extreme I start to think many here aren't actually people but some type of enrage bot.
I was thinking more about calling the other person unhinged, while saying that others are quick to insult.
The person alleged I said this:
Not only did I not say this, I definitely am not calling homeless people cockroaches. The overall reaction to my post was hostile. What's a better word to describe this behaviour on Lemmy in general? Because I see it happen quite regularly, not only to me, but others as well.
The hostility wasn't directed at you personally, it was directed at the specific brainworm of:
What evidence do you have for that claim?
What kind of evidence do you expect?
It's impossible to give a static like "X % of former homeless let their apartment mold". Or "X % of former homeless have trouble with hording", "X % of former homeless end up with broken-in front doors", etc. etc.
It's not only unethical to build such a statistic, it's also next to impossible because "former homeless" is not a countable group of people. And landlords wouldn't even be allowed to collect that information.
The same goes for the number of people who choose to not go to organisations for help and don't want to stay in the housing you offer them. These numbers can only be estimates. I can't show you a proven number of people in this group, because it's impossible to count these people.
If I tell you about my personal experiences, you will claim it doesn't count.
When I tell you the reason the former step-by-step approach exists precisely because of the problems you get when you put people with severe problems into an apartment without further help, you will also claim that doesn't count.
(Or that is what I assume because that's what you wrote to another person who tried to tell you about these problems.)
You already have an opinion made up in your head it seems, and when people tell you what the struggles are in practicality, you build up a strawman that these people must just hate the homeless or something.
But these are real problems that really need to be addressed. Because otherwise you just cycle back to the beginning, where people already tried in the past to just put them under a roof in group homes and accomodations, expecting them to magically solve all their problems themselves. Then again think "let's get them drug free / mentally healthier / out of debt first", which also doesn't work. And then you will be at the same point again where most countries are now.
The way to approach the problem is not to simply give homes to homeless people, you need a diverse range of systems in place to make it work.
If you don't speak German, perhaps you can make an AI translation of this report: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/66376/ssoar-2018-steffen_et_al-Strategien_sozialraumlicher_Integration_von_Wohnungslosen.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-2018-steffen_et_al-Strategien_sozialraumlicher_Integration_von_Wohnungslosen.pdf
It describes, with multiple sources, what is necessary to make it work. For example with weekly visits to be able to step in when first signs of trouble with the housekeeping come up.
Thank yoy, you highlighted the problem perfectly.
1.You have stated a value judgement that keeping an apartment clear of clutter/mold is more valuable than a person's life. I hope thats not what you believe, but it is what you are saying.
They are people, no different than you and I and your use of pure anecdotes and "general vibes" to justify these additional hoops which not only don't work, but cause additional trauma to those subjected to them. (Which spoiler, is why group homes and the instruction thing you linked dont actually work.)
How would you like having to allow someone else into your home to inspect the "cleanliness" of it, collect samples to check for drug use, etc. Knowing that they can evict you at any moment? Is that maybe stressful? De-humanizing?
Again, it's not hostility towards you, it's (IMO perfectly justified) hostility towards that specific rhetoric that a particular subset of people are "different" and "destructive" and so shouldn't get basic necessities when there is nothing to back that up.