Cherry picked a plot of land 100 miles from anything in order to convey how unfeasable it is. It’s a fool’s errand but plenty of land is not 100 miles from anything. Anyone suggesting such is suggesting such in bad faith IMO
Are all plots of land 100 miles from anything? Is the opportunity cost equally absurd in every regard, compared to what we’re currently doing to address homelessness now?
Here’s the big one:
Is the basic sentiment of my original post somehow wrong, that we could do things for homelessness that don’t villainize it? As I’ve pointed out, fucking over the homeless is quite costly and involving already
Instead of thinking of all the ways how something couldn’t work, might help to think of how it could, considering the current methods are draconian at best, and malicious and cruel at worst.
Trying to make people disappear by making their lives even more hellish is something only an asshole would do, mind you, and that’s what we’re currently doing with gusto, so to point out the frivolity of anything else is akin
I “cherry picked a plot of land 100 miles from a population center” because that’s where the vast majority of the federally-owned land is, out west in the middle of nowhere.
I said absolutely nothing about my opinions on what policies can be instituted to alleviate homelessness and associated issues, because my only point was that your idea is dumb. I work full time in homeless services and live and breathe bettering unhoused people’s lives. I have no idea why you’re directing anger at everyone here, at people who don’t disagree in any way with your actual criticism of the problem of homelessness in the US, but you should probably explore it with a therapist.
The point is that you went from 0-100 and implied that someone who clearly shows compassion towards the unhoused is calling for the bulldozing of tent camps, which is an extremely traumatic and sad thing that isn’t funny.
Show me where they showed compassion? Here is their post:
Well, there’s quite a bit more to it than that. An acre of land a hundred miles from a population center is essentially useless to someone without the money to build a dwelling with utilities or to obtain food
Well no shit an acre of land 100 miles from anything is useless. But, there is land not 100 miles from anything.
To which I said:
Yeah, you’re right, bulldozing tent cities is the only reconcilable thing to do towards the homeless with money and skilled labor. Anything else is simply too complicated
Because we’re currently doing that. We’re currently spending money bulldozing tent cities. All because spending money on other things is too complicated.
We could find land closer than 100 miles to something, wouldn’t be too complicated. We could use money to provide aid to homeless rather than fuck over homeless, equally not complicated.
But also, to just try to shut down any idea that aids homeless, as opposed to the current stuff we’re doing, not productive, right?
Anyone with compassion would rather daydream about solutions as opposed to attempting to condone the current status quo, which is making homeless people’s lives even more of a living hell than what it currently is
Edit: I also didn’t say they were all for bulldozing tent cities, I just pointed out that that’s what we’re doing right now with resources and money, so alternatives are likely better, and do shrug and point out the unfeasibility of any alternative is counterproductive
Which part of protist’s statement implied any of what you said?
Cherry picked a plot of land 100 miles from anything in order to convey how unfeasable it is. It’s a fool’s errand but plenty of land is not 100 miles from anything. Anyone suggesting such is suggesting such in bad faith IMO
Are all plots of land 100 miles from anything? Is the opportunity cost equally absurd in every regard, compared to what we’re currently doing to address homelessness now?
Here’s the big one:
Is the basic sentiment of my original post somehow wrong, that we could do things for homelessness that don’t villainize it? As I’ve pointed out, fucking over the homeless is quite costly and involving already
Instead of thinking of all the ways how something couldn’t work, might help to think of how it could, considering the current methods are draconian at best, and malicious and cruel at worst.
Trying to make people disappear by making their lives even more hellish is something only an asshole would do, mind you, and that’s what we’re currently doing with gusto, so to point out the frivolity of anything else is akin
I “cherry picked a plot of land 100 miles from a population center” because that’s where the vast majority of the federally-owned land is, out west in the middle of nowhere.
I said absolutely nothing about my opinions on what policies can be instituted to alleviate homelessness and associated issues, because my only point was that your idea is dumb. I work full time in homeless services and live and breathe bettering unhoused people’s lives. I have no idea why you’re directing anger at everyone here, at people who don’t disagree in any way with your actual criticism of the problem of homelessness in the US, but you should probably explore it with a therapist.
The point is that you went from 0-100 and implied that someone who clearly shows compassion towards the unhoused is calling for the bulldozing of tent camps, which is an extremely traumatic and sad thing that isn’t funny.
Also, on top of you explaining why they’re compassionate, I feel I deserve an explanation as to why you think I’m not.
No one owes you shit.
Show me where they showed compassion? Here is their post:
Well no shit an acre of land 100 miles from anything is useless. But, there is land not 100 miles from anything.
To which I said:
Because we’re currently doing that. We’re currently spending money bulldozing tent cities. All because spending money on other things is too complicated.
We could find land closer than 100 miles to something, wouldn’t be too complicated. We could use money to provide aid to homeless rather than fuck over homeless, equally not complicated.
But also, to just try to shut down any idea that aids homeless, as opposed to the current stuff we’re doing, not productive, right?
Anyone with compassion would rather daydream about solutions as opposed to attempting to condone the current status quo, which is making homeless people’s lives even more of a living hell than what it currently is
Edit: I also didn’t say they were all for bulldozing tent cities, I just pointed out that that’s what we’re doing right now with resources and money, so alternatives are likely better, and do shrug and point out the unfeasibility of any alternative is counterproductive
Bruh, I work in homeless services. Egad man, get a grip