595
submitted 1 year ago by TheTango@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Peruvian_Skies@kbin.social 61 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Someone please explain to me how giving food to another person is illegal. This is by far the most dystopian thing I've ever read, fiction included.

[-] trias10@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

Am not defending this law at all, but the thinking behind it is twofold:

  1. you might be handing out tainted or expired food
  2. the bigger issue: you are creating a "nuisance" on the property where you're doing it, as large groups of homeless people gather there. Some would say it's a safety concern, for example handing out free food at the corner of a primary school.

Again, I'm not agreeing with either point, but these are arguments I have heard from people who back such laws.

To the second point though, I've seen it firsthand. Salt Lake City tried to do a good thing by making the public library a homeless-friendly zone by handing out free food and allowing access to WiFi. This caused a large amount of homeless to hang out there all the time, and some of them would harass and attack non-homeless patrons of the library to the point that pretty much all of them stopped coming to the library entirely, and the area became a no-go zone.

The real issue is that a large amount of homeless people have severe mental illnesses (since public sanitariums all closed in the 70s). So where there are big congregations of homeless, there will inevitably be harassment and possible violence. Cities don't want people feeding the homeless at any old public building to avoid these situations, hence the laws, which allow you to do it only at certain places the city allows.

[-] girlfreddy@mastodon.social 14 points 1 year ago

@trias10 @Peruvian_Skies

The real issue is that too many Americans have bought into the bootstrap theory and couldn't give a shit about their neighbours who don't have a place to live or food to eat.

Take care of those 2 things first and there won't be an issue of people hanging out where it's warm/cool and food is being supplied.

[-] trias10@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I hate to burst your bubble, but it's not just an America problem. Have you been to Paris lately and seen the homelessness situation there, especially on the Metro?

Or in Oslo, where homeless Roma people attack people in broad daylight at Nationalteatret station and steal their luggage?

It's a big problem everywhere, and attitudes like the type you describe aren't relegated solely to Americans.

[-] girlfreddy@mastodon.social 2 points 1 year ago

@trias10

That's fair. So let's fix it worldwide then, starting with North America.

[-] trias10@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I'd love to mate, but I honestly don't know how. One thing I have to come to realise is that simply throwing money at the problem doesn't work. Norway, London, NYC, and California both spends billions each year on homelessness and the problem is only getting worse every year in all those places.

Maybe a good place to start would be opening up free sanitariums again where homeless people with mental issues could be housed, as sadly the streets have become the new dumping ground for people with severe mental illness.

Beyond that, am not sure, besides a total dismantling of capitalism.

[-] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

The answer is trivial.

Stop spending billions on a "war on drugs" and make sure people have houses and healthcare (including mental health) unconditionally with no ridiculous hoops or welfare traps 10 years before they become a street junkie.

Just because some places misused a bunch of money doing very stupid things with it doesn't validate ignoring the solution.

[-] trias10@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's not nearly so trivial. Having lived in Norway for many years, a country which does have unconditional free healthcare (including mental health), and free access to housing, they still have a large homeless population and plenty of street crime.

[-] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Norway has much much lower homeless proportion than more neoliberal countries. It is a prime example of this strategy working.

[-] trias10@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Maybe, but even Norway has hardly stamped out homelessness completely. Far from it actually, there are some parts of Oslo which have immensely high levels of homelessness. Not as bad Skid Row in LA, but not far behind either.

[-] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Hahaha! Doing that thing you said (but still with some hoops for mental healthcare and housing) only makes it way better! Check-mate! Let's double down on spending ten times as much pujishing the homeless for being homeless!

[-] trias10@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm afraid you genuinely lost me.

I said I'm all for free mental healthcare and housing, but even these don't seem to solve the problem. Nor does just throwing money at the problem. So I have no ideas for how to solve the issue, besides maybe just dismantling capitalism entirely, but this also comes with problems.

[-] bluGill@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

The sanitoriums were closed for good reason. Bad as homelessness is, it is better than the abuse of sanitoriums.

Not a sanitorium, but i know someone who was in an orphanage, they beat kids with a metal chimney brush if they put their head on the pillow when they slept. This earned them lots of awards for how nice all the kids beds were. Sanitoriums were reportable just as bad, but I don't have such close accounts.

[-] girlfreddy@mastodon.social 4 points 1 year ago

@bluGill @TheTango @Peruvian_Skies @trias10

The sanatoriums were horrendous and closed by both Canadian and American gov'ts in the late 60's - early 70's for good reason. The problem was the gov'ts didn't put programs in place to help those people live outside the walls ... essentially the same thing they do with prisoners now.

Guaranteed incomes, stable housing and support networks would clear up many of the "issues", but too many whine about their tax dollars being spent on people in need.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

Beyond that, am not sure, besides a total dismantling of capitalism.

You say that like it's not the actual solution.

[-] trias10@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No one would be happier than me with this solution, but it will never realistically happen in our lifetimes. And even if it somehow came to happen eventually, given the entrenchment of current elites, it would only happen with an immense cost in human lives and violence, and a massive drop in living standards in the immediate aftermath before some utopia is created.

Current day -> neo Soviet revolution -> Mad Max -> the last of us? -> ??? -> Bernie Sanders Utopia

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

All those things are basically guaranteed anyway thanks to climate change. I just hope the survivors aren't stupid enough to try to go back to how things are now.

[-] ElleChaise@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

total dismantling of capitalism.

... Go on.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
595 points (98.2% liked)

News

23305 readers
3656 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS