User Controls
Opinions on the homeless?
-
2017-05-15 at 1:33 AM UTC^ Yeah, there's way too much abuse that goes on. People make assumptions, there's a lot of virtue signaling and delusion among leftists, but the data is pretty clear. You really should not give money directly to the homeless, but instead do your research and contribute to the best organization(s) you can find, the one that's most cost effective.
Honestly, most of the homeless are bad people, and ended up that way because they were so fucked up that even their relatives would no longer put up with their bullshit. Others are just really unfortunate and mentally ill, or have enormous past trauma. And of course being in that environment, that lifestyle, for an extended period of time is going to fuck you up, it's pretty much bound to change you for the worse.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-05-15 at 1:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice ^ Yeah, there's way too much abuse that goes on. People make assumptions, there's a lot of virtue signaling and delusion among leftists, but the data is pretty clear. You really should not give money directly to the homeless, but instead do your research and contribute to the best organization(s) you can find, the one that's most cost effective.
Honestly, most of the homeless are bad people, and ended up that way because they were so fucked up that even their relatives would no longer put up with their bullshit. Others are just really unfortunate and mentally ill, or have enormous past trauma. And of course being in that environment, that lifestyle, for an extended period of time is going to fuck you up, it's pretty much bound to change you for the worse.
says the guy that loves that gubberment cheese he gets through people that have jobs and pay taxes, stfu you cuck -
2017-05-15 at 2:27 AM UTCHow does that change anything? If anything I'm a living example that rightists may be right about some things. There is serious abuse in the system, it can cause dependence and lead to an incredibly self-destructive cycle that does you no good and leaves you off worse than even if you had been forcibly kicked out into the world and had to work shitty jobs.
It reminds me of Welcome to the NHK, where at one point it specifically stated that hikikomori was a luxury of modern society and that if man wants to eat, he will eventually work. And you know what? The author was a NEET/hiki himself. He made money off it, but later admitted that he went back to his old lifestyle and it simply enabled him to continue.
I don't know how he turned out after all this time, but even after he achieved some success/recognition it did not lead to a happy ending for him. -
2017-05-15 at 2:38 AM UTC
Originally posted by Totse 2001 Was the entire "Protest" a ploy device to have 3 years of free rent? it gave him an umbrella of security to pretend he had legit issues when all he was doing was putting on a show knowing that it would look bad politically to strike against the homeless man in any form.
I don't think so. Rumor has it, he lost his business (repairing TVs, specifically just the ones people used before flatscreens) and blames it on the city government. Now it's his life's mission to make their lives difficult. -
2017-05-15 at 2:54 AM UTCHa, reminds me of this guy, the creator of the infamous Killdozer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer
I'd be mad as hell too, although it's clearly a pretty poor lifestyle/strategic decision. -
2017-05-15 at 3:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I don't think so. Rumor has it, he lost his business (repairing TVs, specifically just the ones people used before flatscreens) and blames it on the city government. Now it's his life's mission to make their lives difficult.
Understand I wasn't mocking him for being homeless. I am separated and ended up being homeless in my truck. I got a Job and still was homeless because of how ridiculously rent is in the Bay Area. I rented an Office with a shower and full bathrooms downstairs. it was an old Hotel from the 1800s (Beautiful Victorian) for like 500 a month but I had to get 100 insurance business plan monthly so it was 600 which isn't bad. The only thing Is I had to get the hell out of there every morning prior to 6am when a lawyer showed up. You can find small office space cheap. just go to a Gym.
But I was praising him for working that free rent on the county seat lawn LOL -
2017-05-15 at 3:40 AM UTCIt's becoming a serious problem here, there's a little tent city along the side of a big park next to central station and there are more and more all around the city.
Something that needs to be changed is how difficult it is to get out of the cycle once you become homeless for whatever reason - it's very difficult to get even minimum-wage work if you don't have a postal address and aren't able to bathe/wash your clothes regularly.
I've noticed a bit of a trend lately, specifically with panhandlers though - maybe 5-10 years ago there were very few homeless in the city with pets, but now it seems every scraggly panhandler has a dog or two to feed. The possibilities are either that pet-owners are becoming homeless at a disproportionate rate of these assholes are adopting (likely stealing) animals they knowingly can't support in order to emotionally manipulate people into giving them money. -
2017-05-15 at 3:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Umm, no, it's not. Let's assume there were no regulations and I just wanted to become a slumlord, build tiny shacks out of plywood, insulation, and weatherproofing. Just the cheapest imaginable. There are a lot of proposals for ultra low cost housing.
It doesn't matter if you don't like it, that those conditions are shitty and awful, and no one should have to live in them. Ultimately, it's still shelter, some privacy, and protection from the elements.
Homelessness is a state issue, period. It's an inevitable product of the power of political authority. And of course mental illness if completely ignored, even in Marxist society it wouldn't eliminate it and there would be people who would refuse to live medication and choose to be homeless, for whatever reason. Look at all the gutter punk street kids around SF and Berkeley.
You know that Marx literally wrote The Communist Manifesto even before The Origin of Species was produced, right? Of course there's Das Kapital and modern literature, but there's a good reason why virtually no major economist (If you claim bias I hope you realize how incredibly hypocritical you'd be, considering your prior complaints towards me.) takes Marx seriously anymore.
Serious question: I know you're going through your youthful intellectually rebellious phase where subconsciously you want to develop a certain image of yourself, but you have attempted to be rational and at least read a book on criticisms of Marxist ideology/economics, right?
Do you honestly think price is the issue with homelessness? Look at places that house the homeless with zero cost rent, there are STILL people who choose to be homeless for one reason or another. People who say 'fuck the system' for one dumb fucking reason or another.
Acting like there's some cure-all is pretty presumptuous -
2017-05-15 at 3:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra It's becoming a serious problem here, there's a little tent city along the side of a big park next to central station and there are more and more all around the city.
Something that needs to be changed is how difficult it is to get out of the cycle once you become homeless for whatever reason - it's very difficult to get even minimum-wage work if you don't have a postal address and aren't able to bathe/wash your clothes regularly.
I've noticed a bit of a trend lately, specifically with panhandlers though - maybe 5-10 years ago there were very few homeless in the city with pets, but now it seems every scraggly panhandler has a dog or two to feed. The possibilities are either that pet-owners are becoming homeless at a disproportionate rate of these assholes are adopting (likely stealing) animals they knowingly can't support in order to emotionally manipulate people into giving them money.
I have seen folks use stray dogs to manipulate people like that. I know they were stray because they were all mangy and they'd just let them go at the end of the day. Saw one guy with several different dogs. -
2017-05-15 at 3:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by Discount Whore Do you honestly think price is the issue with homelessness? Look at places that house the homeless with zero cost rent, there are STILL people who choose to be homeless for one reason or another. People who say 'fuck the system' for one dumb fucking reason or another.
Acting like there's some cure-all is pretty presumptuous
You're right. There is no cure-all because people who are perpetually homeless (not just down are their luck) are shitty people, and all you do by giving them handouts is further enable their degeneracy. -
2017-05-15 at 3:49 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Homelessness is an inevitable product of technological advancement under the capitalist mode of production. They inconvenience me personally to a degree, and it's sad to witness, but ultimately I think the visible pathology of urban homelessness is preferable to the quietly desperate working lower in that it's far more difficult to ignore as a society.
Lol look at that fucking trademark pseudointellectual confidence. Really? Capitalism is the cause for homelessness? How can you be so sure? You don't think homelessness exists in non-capitalist places?
This is the kind of bullshit that makes academia irrelevant to real life so often. Just because you can come up with a hypothesis and a plausible sounding explanation for it doesn't mean that that is the only explanation for it or that your explanation encompasses the entire reason for your hypothesis. People who think that are usually content to get their explanation and just make a mental clean cut of the issue like "WELP I SUPPORTED MY HYPOTHESIS THAT MAKES IT TRUE NO MATTER WHAT."
Did you even consider the fact that pre-economic systems, everyone was homeless?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-05-15 at 3:49 AM UTC
Originally posted by Dargo You're right. There is no cure-all because people who are perpetually homeless (not just down are their luck) are shitty people, and all you do by giving them handouts is further enable their degeneracy.
Basically. It's easy to tell the type as well. I've got nothing against the homeless, but people like that are another story. Your entire life is not just one big 'I'm getting fucked over.' The vast majority of homeless people figure out their shit and get back to some sort of normality. No excuse to be homeless for 10 years. I mean God, if you're really that much of a piece of shit why wouldn't you just manipulate somebody for survival? Move in with them and be a leech. Plenty of people do. -
2017-05-15 at 3:50 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-05-15 at 3:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Ha, reminds me of this guy, the creator of the infamous Killdozer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer
I'd be mad as hell too, although it's clearly a pretty poor lifestyle/strategic decision.
Smalltown and wealthy controling who gets what.
I saw the movie they most likely took the name from. Or the band who got the name most likely from the film.
There you go Bill Krozby.. another film to add to your list of must see
-
2017-05-15 at 3:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by greenplastic Lol look at that fucking trademark pseudointellectual confidence. Really? Capitalism is the cause for homelessness? How can you be so sure? You don't think homelessness exists in non-capitalist places?
This is the kind of bullshit that makes academia irrelevant to real life so often. Just because you can come up with a hypothesis and a plausible sounding explanation for it doesn't mean that that is the only explanation for it or that your explanation encompasses the entire reason for your hypothesis. People who think that are usually content to get their explanation and just make a mental clean cut of the issue like "WELP I SUPPORTED MY HYPOTHESIS THAT MAKES IT TRUE NO MATTER WHAT."
Did you even consider the fact that pre-economic systems, everyone was homeless?
That's not a fact at all. Communal dwellings existed even before the concept of ownership.
And his comment makes perfect sense - in a purely capitalistic system, there are people who have nothing of value to offer so they're effectively unable to participate. Technology and specifically automation constantly make more and more forms of labour redundant, so among people with small skillsets, scientific and industrial 'progress' constantly renders more and more worthless to the system... And contributing to/benefiting from that system is the only way to improve their station.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-05-15 at 4 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra That's not a fact at all. Communal dwellings existed even before the concept of ownership.
And his comment makes perfect sense - in a purely capitalistic system, there are people who have nothing of value to offer so they're effectively unable to participate. Technology and specifically automation constantly make more and more forms of labour redundant, so among people with small skillsets, scientific and industrial 'progress' constantly renders more and more worthless to the system… And contributing to/benefiting from that system is the only way to improve their station.
I would like to add that greenplastic's synopsis of, "Capitalism is the cause for homelessness" is a strawman argument. I think Lanny was only commenting on homelessness in capitalism and not all homelessness being caused by capitalism. Seems that's where the confusion and magnification of his being a liberal cunt is coming from.
I don't really think you're a cunt Lanny, I just wanted to say cunt. I don't get to say it enough. -
2017-05-15 at 4:06 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra That's not a fact at all. Communal dwellings existed even before the concept of ownership.
And his comment makes perfect sense - in a purely capitalistic system, there are people who have nothing of value to offer so they're effectively unable to participate. Technology and specifically automation constantly make more and more forms of labour redundant, so among people with small skillsets, scientific and industrial 'progress' constantly renders more and more worthless to the system… And contributing to/benefiting from that system is the only way to improve their station.
You didn't understand my post. I didn't say he didn't have a point or that it didn't make sense, I said that just because you can come up with a hypothesis and a reasonable explanation for it doesn't mean your explanation is the end all be all of the matter. Obviously we know that there are homeless people that exist in places that are not capitalist, so his explanation is wrong, or at the very least, not encompassing every situation in which someone would be homeless. So to don problem glasses and come forward with this cocky little explanation of where homelessness comes from like he just confirmed some shit beyond a shadow of a doubt with empirical evidence when the whole thing comes crashing down as soon as you see a homeless person in a non capitalist economy is bullshit. -
2017-05-15 at 4:08 AM UTCpls see post #56
-
2017-05-15 at 4:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by Discount Whore I would like to add that greenplastic's synopsis of, "Capitalism is the cause for homelessness" is a strawman argument. I think Lanny was only commenting on homelessness in capitalism and not all homelessness being caused by capitalism. Seems that's where the confusion and magnification of his being a liberal cunt is coming from.
I don't really think you're a cunt Lanny, I just wanted to say cunt. I don't get to say it enough.
How is it a strawmens arguemnt? The title of the thread wasn't "opinions on the homeless in capitalist countries" it was "opinions on the homeless." If anything, your argument is the disingenuous one because you're shifting the subject from what it was, to something that his reply fits better. -
2017-05-15 at 4:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by greenplastic You didn't understand my post. I didn't say he didn't have a point or that it didn't make sense, I said that just because you can come up with a hypothesis and a reasonable explanation for it doesn't mean your explanation is the end all be all of the matter. Obviously we know that there are homeless people that exist in places that are not capitalist, so his explanation is wrong, or at the very least, not encompassing every situation in which someone would be homeless. So to don problem glasses and come forward with this cocky little explanation of where homelessness comes from like he just confirmed some shit beyond a shadow of a doubt with empirical evidence when the whole thing comes crashing down as soon as you see a homeless person in a non capitalist economy is bullshit.
yeah fair enough I guess, it was written in a wanky way but I gather that he was getting at our (the western world's) current mode of capitalism is actually contributing to the homelessness problem more than it's helping - given the way that those at the top always reap the greatest rewards from such 'progress', I tend to agree.
