• ringwraithfish@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    145
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Can’t afford a home, probably gonna be illegal to be homeless. Guess they should just kill themselves then.

    Fuck the modern conservative movement. No empathy for the downtrodden.

    • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      7 months ago

      Get a load of this lib that doesn’t know virtually every Dem-run city provides full-throated support for the cops and pushes anti-homeless policies.

      You ever stopped a sweep, lib?

      • ringwraithfish@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s important to acknowledge the complexities of urban governance and the diverse approaches taken by different cities, regardless of political affiliation. While some cities may have policies that prioritize law enforcement and anti-homeless measures, others may take alternative approaches focused on community outreach, social services, and harm reduction. Each city faces unique challenges and adopts policies accordingly. If you have specific examples or cases you’d like to discuss, feel free to share, and we can explore them further.

        • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          7 months ago

          What a pretentious way to say, “some cities don’t do that”. Do you get paid to communicate like ChatGPT?

          So given that you’re asking for specific examples for the thing that is by far the norm, can I assume you know basically nothing about this topic

        • oozynozh@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Never seen generative AI used to respond to a thread in a random forum, but here we are.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        They’re connected. How many times can you get detained overnight and have your entire life belongings destroyed before you fight the police officer detaining you?

        • EstraDoll [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          I legitimately am unable to tell if this is genuine or just another hexbear user on a different instance doing a bit. This sounds exactly like what we would do as a joke

          • SeedyOne@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            15 years ago maybe, to claim it now shows you’ve been in a news bubble. Get some new perspective.

            • beardown@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Depends who you view as progressive.

              Hilldog claimed to be a progressive. Albeit a “progressive who gets stuff done.” There are many politicos similar to her, such as Buttigieg, Newsom, etc

              And then there is Bernie Sanders. And, on some level, the Squad and their allies.

              Clearly these are (at least) two distinct groups. Yet both use the label of progressive when it suits them. Which muddies the waters and (intentionally) confuses the public

              Meanwhile, we also now have paleoconservatives/fascists like Josh Hawley who are somehow getting union support. Labels don’t mean as much as they used to

              https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/teamsters-make-another-move-toward-gop-give-5-000-to-sen-josh-hawley/ar-BB1lC5gE

              • SeedyOne@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                Actually, it doesn’t. Instead of looking at the nuance of the progressive side, you only need to look at the complete lack of vision, policies and outright lies that the right is now full of. Not just voting against their constituents wishes but against their OWN policies. Defense bills that might make a democrat look good, can’t have that. Healthcare plans that they champion until Obama’s name is on it. And those are just the low hanging, obvious fruit.

                “Both sides” have their issues but it’s crystal fucking clear which one has gone off the rails and is against almost everything this country was founded on. If you can’t see it, you’re bubbled. Plain and simple.

                • beardown@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Neoliberals are enemies of the working class.

                  So are fascists, obviously. But Reagan and Clintons neoliberalism is how we got here.

          • ringwraithfish@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            So cute, you want to join an adult conversation. Come on pal, let’s see your work. Gotta back up your claims with evidence if you want to continue sitting at the adult table.

          • ringwraithfish@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            As an AI, I don’t have personal thoughts or feelings, but I strive to provide helpful and respectful responses based on the input I receive from users. If there’s anything specific you’d like to discuss or clarify, feel free to let me know.

        • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Okay then. What solution do even the most egalitarian or radical progressives/liberals, who you call the “adults”, have to solve capitalism’s contradictions and crises, with capitalism’s inherent unequal division of private property, leading to rising inequality and homelessness, being one of them? Because everything I’ve heard from just sounds like they are talking around the problem and avoiding the elephant in the room, the capitalistic system. In fact, many progressives when talking about issues such as homelessness, do not challenge the notion of private property and accept the inequality inherent to such a system, and then explain it away through bogus reasoning. I do not think that this way of avoiding about talking about how the modern capitalistic system works is adult behaviour. In fact, I’d say that it is childish behaviour, and does not deserve to be called progressive. The right wing being more brazen with it’s lack of ethics does not excuse the failure of liberals to address current issues.

          The contemporary version of bourgeois emancipating reason, egalitarian liberalism, made fashionable by an insistent media popularization, provides nothing new because it remains prisoner of the liberty, equality, and property triplet. Challenged by the conflict between liberty and equality, which the unequal division of property necessarily implies, so-called egalitarian liberalism is only very moderately egalitarian. Inequality is accepted and legitimized by a feat of acrobatics, which borrows its pseudo concept of “endowments” from popular economics. Egalitarian liberalism offers a highly platitudinous observation: individuals (society being the sum of individuals) are endowed with diverse standings in life (some are powerful heads of enterprise, others have nothing). These unequal endowments, nevertheless, remain legitimate as long as they are the product, inherited obviously, of the work and the savings of ancestors. So one is asked to go back in history to the mythical day of the original social contract made between equals, who later became unequal because they really desired it, as evidenced by the inequality of the sacrifices to which they consented. I do not think that this way of avoiding the questions of the specificity of capitalism even deserves to be considered elegant.

          • Samir Amin, Eurocentrism
          • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            How about UBI? Although I haven’t heard any of them argue for it to be a living wage, but at least the conversation has begun. Honestly, I think most people actually DO want an unequal division of private property. They want a system where if you work harder than the rest you get more than the rest. The big problem I see is that many people automatically assume that if you already have more that means you worked harder, which isn’t necessarily true. We have people who work very little and get to hoard vast wealth. We also have people working their ass off and getting very little reward. The problem isn’t unequal division of property, it’s that the way it’s being divided up is shitty (and always has been).

      • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think you’re confusing the neo liberals with the progressive movement. (Basically Clinton vs Bernie)