Of all the things to complain about, the Obama Presidential Library, which is a public amenity designed to be utilized by the underserved community on the south side of Chicago, is really fucking low on the list.
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2026
278 points (91.4% liked)
Flippanarchy
2569 readers
340 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
OP is also applying divisive politial labels to an image that is for the most part apolitical.
Libraries, public/private capital, public space, access to housing, presidential legacies are absolutely political topics.
divisive
agree an that part tho
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
wait until they ask how many people they can house with the money they spent on the war. or by taxing billionaires.
we have the resources for everyone to live a comfortable life. but the people in power want workers. and they artificially create scarcity to motivate workers...
This leftist versus liberal shit really needs to stop. I’m starting to think that it’s intentional propaganda to try to keep the left divided.
Liberals aren't on the left. The left and liberals have always been divided because we have completely different, irreconciliable goals
load more comments
(1 replies)
I mean, i am willing to work with libs as long as our goals are aligned. But if they glaze a war criminal I will call them out
load more comments
(9 replies)
Except liberals supporting capitalism and imperialism aren't worth working with outside of single issue campaigns temporarily.
load more comments
(6 replies)
I like how Obama prosecuted Abu grabe torture whistleblowers under the espionage act that was awesome
Let's spend all our effort stopping Obama from building something that helps working class people. You .ml losers spend way more time and energy trying to stop good but not perfect things than you do during to stop actual fascists. It really makes you wonder what your agenda really is.
I remember when Real-ID was being proposed. I was dead set against and volunteered with groups calling voters, going door to door etc.
One day some Mormons came knocking and before I could speak they specifically pitched that the Government was about to institute the Mark of the Beast.
I was elated; I had the governor's feedback phone number on speed dial and asked them to take 30 seconds and leave him a voicemail saying "don't do that"
They flatly refused, because they "don't get involved in Earthly politics"
To told them to get the fuck off my property
Sounds about right lol
load more comments
(2 replies)
Title and image do not match at all
Yeah I don’t know what OP is, but it’s well suspicious that they start more threads than they actually comment in, and post baffling captions like this. Can’t decide between bot or just a teenage edgelord
$850mil is like... five houses. So I think this was a better usage of money.
How much could a banana cost
This gotta be a joke right?
It's pretty clearly a joke about the highly inflated housing costs. Sorry my humor is too high brow for you (*ᴗ͈ˬᴗ͈)ꕤ*.ﾟ
load more comments
(2 replies)
Even one house would have been better than a monument to the guy who drone striked children
load more comments
(1 replies)
which one is the liberal and which one is the leftist?
It doesn’t matter. The point is infighting
My suspicion is that it’s not even that originally; there’s a certain type of right-winger who feigns to champion progressive values to try making the left look like hypocrites.
its not infighting when we have vastly contradicting means and ends.
load more comments
(1 replies)
How about this $300 billion "please stop humiliating me Iran" fund?
I'm reminded of when Andrew Carnegie built libraries but his miners mocked him for it because they didn't have time or energy to read and said higher wages would benefit them instead, and he mocked them for demanding higher wages saying they'd waste it on better cuts of meat or more drink for their dinner
given all that is going on this is a minor thing, but the fuck is going on with Americans building temples and monuments to functionaries?
Yhea, in theory they are libraries and open for the community, but in reality, they are temples commemorating war criminals
Here, if you're really interested. Their main purpose is to give the public access to their records and papers so they can't just hide them in a bathroom
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The thing is they built this place on top of a park that already existed. Basically 90% of the people on the south side hate this building because it was forced on them and it adds nothing new to their part of town except gentrification.
Asuming a 3-bedroom house, at average home prices in major cities(Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, et cetera), something like 2.5 thousand houses housing 7.25 thousand people.
Wouldn't actually help to build them though, since we already have enough housing. A good portion of homeless are mentally ill, on hard drugs, previously trafficked or governmentally shafted people, or just too poor. The houses are there, there are literally whole sky-scraper apartments in New York that are empty. Whole urban sprawls that have been empty for years now.
We aren't like Japan here in the US where just making the houses depreciate instead of appreciate will fix the problem. Its like 3 much bigger problems wearing the trench-coat of one problem.
There aren't enough houses where people want to live. There are plenty of dirt cheap houses in rural nowhere with no jobs within a four hour drive. There are plenty of empty second homes in developments with no access to any public transit or services that would be unlivable to poor people even if we gave them the houses for free. There are few enough empty units in New York and the like that the owners reasonably believe they can, with patience and strategy, rent them out or sell for a profit.
A significant chunk of homeless people, the "chronically homeless", have the challenges you referenced and are difficult to support into stable housing. But the majority of homeless people, the "transiently homeless", are just poor and had one too many hard knocks to be able to hold onto their housing unit. With the high cost of housing - driven by unit shortage where they live - being one of those knocks.
Green here reads more like a conservative person making a bad faith argument by pretending to be über-progressive.
We have plenty of houses for the homeless. This is the worst part of the whole issue. We choose to keep people homeless even if there is plenty of housing. I believe there are 28 empty houses/homes for every homeless person.
Of course some people would argue that there isn't always enough empty houses in the area where homeless are. This is true, also some homeless people are so bad off they couldn't live in a house/apartment without some extra support. This is also true.
Regardless we can house most of the homeless but we actively choose not to. That is why I support housing first as the only proven way to tackle this issue.
https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-First-Evidence.pdf
Of course some people would argue that there isn’t always enough empty houses in the area where homeless are.
This is also because many places that have empty homes are really dangerous for and discriminatory against unhoused folks. So they are more likely to move to / survive in / stay at places where they have an easier time surviving because at least some shelter/social services exists, the locals aren't as murderous, the local cops aren't sweeping camps as often, things like giving food out for free isnt illegalized and because they can stay under the radar in the more anonymous big city.
I'm actually curious about the answer. Some back of the napkin math (aka take it with a grain of salt), it looks like ~100,000 could be housed in a rapid rehousing / temporary housing structure or ~40,000 in permanent supportive housing but the number is super variable based on location. Like are we talking housing them in NY, LA, SF or like rural West Virginia, Mississippi, Oklahoma?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Agree with the sentiment, but let's stop dipping into culture projects until we start slashing funding for a global imperialism project, eh?
load more comments
(1 replies)
the keen eyed amongst us may be able to discern that none of the things listed is "housing"
view more: next ›