this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
99 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
2995 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago

It doesn't seem the right-wing side of this Supreme Court gives much of a damn about personal freedoms, and they'd gladly help a profit-based imprisonment system nobody could ever escape from for simply existing. I hate this goddamned timeline.

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It is worth saying something about the social position of beggars, for when one has consorted with them, and found that they are ordinary human beings, one cannot help being struck by the curious attitude that society takes towards them. People seem to feel that there is some essential difference between beggars and ordinary 'working' men. They are a race apart--outcasts, like criminals and prostitutes. Working men 'work', beggars do not 'work'; they are parasites, worthless in their very nature. It is taken for granted that a beggar does not 'earn' his living, as a bricklayer or a literary critic 'earns' his. He is a mere social excrescence, tolerated because we live in a humane age, but essentially despicable.

Yet if one looks closely one sees that there is no ESSENTIAL difference between a beggar's livelihood and that of numberless respectable people. Beggars do not work, it is said; but, then, what is WORK? A navvy works by swinging a pick. An accountant works by adding up figures. A beggar works by standing out of doors in all weathers and getting varicose veins, chronic bronchitis, etc. It is a trade like any other; quite useless, of course--but, then, many reputable trades are quite useless. And as a social type a beggar compares well with scores of others. He is honest compared with the sellers of most patent medicines, high-minded compared with a Sunday newspaper proprietor, amiable compared with a hire-purchase tout--in short, a parasite, but a fairly harmless parasite. He seldom extracts more than a bare living from the community, and, what should justify him according to our ethical ideas, he pays for it over and over in suffering. I do not think there is anything about a beggar that sets him in a different class from other people, or gives most modern men the right to despise him.

Then the question arises, Why are beggars despised?--for they are despised, universally. I believe it is for the simple reason that they fail to earn a decent living. In practice nobody cares whether work is useful or useless, productive or parasitic; the sole thing demanded is that it shall be profitable. In all the modern talk about energy, efficiency, social service and the rest of it, what meaning is there except 'Get money, get it legally, and get a lot of it'? Money has become the grand test of virtue. By this test beggars fail, and for this they are despised. If one could earn even ten pounds a week at begging, it would become a respectable profession immediately. A beggar, looked at realistically, is simply a businessman, getting his living, like other businessmen, in the way that comes to hand. He has not, more than most modern people, sold his honour; he has merely made the mistake of choosing a trade at which it is impossible to grow rich.

-George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London

[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Fuck this is pathetic and sad. If you want a thriving (or at least a functioning) society, then provide the infrastructure and nonprofit services necessary to ensure at least a baseline of individual needs are met (food, access to clean running water, shelter, access to education).

It's obvious that these fascists don't want this. They wrongly believe they can provide this kind of society by doubling down on capitalism, which can only exist in a society where needs are solely provided in exchange for wage slavery. Poverty, homelessness, as well as the unregulated ultrawealthy are a necessary part of this dynamic.

Now they want to push even more people they don't like into prisons...here...in America... already with the largest for profit prison system in the world. Its obvious that if they had their way, they'd just bring the gas chambers back up and claim it's humane when in actuality it'd just be for profit (as well as for their own sick shits and giggles). Yet somehow, we all know that even with these obvious holocaust callbacks, they'd still claim they aren't fucking fascists.

WTFF.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 4 points 10 months ago

Bold of you to assume they want a functioning society. They want a society that functions for them, and as far as they're concerned everyone else can be fed to a wood chipper.

[–] Blackout@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

But all they have to do is buy a house. Why don't the homeless ask their daddy to buy them one like Elon did?

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

What do you do with the homeless people who don't want help, due to mental illness or otherwise? There are violent, mentally ill homeless in my city and frankly my sympathy for them has run thin. They have shelters and programs that are well funded, but until we agree that some people need to be FORCIBLY put into programs, we're always gonna have issues, even if you're homelessness budget is good

[–] zaphodb2002@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago