- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Stolen from here: https://social.marxist.network/@yogthos/113583918563324620
You must log in or register to comment.
God bless Jeremy for speaking the truth.
We all suffer but the already disenfranchised suffer the most. Sounds fair. Or does it?
Let homeless people have benches and public restroom access, it’s the absolute bare minimum we can do.
The problem is this only works in areas where the homeless aren’t a majority of drug addicts. In North America this is infeasable they will piss and leave syringes everywhere. This just creates avoidable work for the people cleaning out this stuff.
If only we would think of things to help house the homeless, instead of seeing them as a nuisance.
Oh no! You mean the city will have to employ more janitors?!? The horror!!
It’s so fucking annoying when people say shit like this as if other countries (even some cities in the US) haven’t had this figured out for years at this point. Do like the minimum amount of research.
Then you don’t want to remove benches. You want, at very least, some kind of shelter system, Supervised Injection Sites, and an adequate social security and healthcare system to support those that are ready to quit their addiction.
Removing the benches from public transport stations just spreads out the problem.
Im thinking what happens if the people that are not homeless sue the city for a lack of areas to sit down? Regular people. Disabled people. Elderly. Pregnant. Etc
We add more benches.
Tired people don’t sue. They are too tired.
Then that lawsuit will be paid with tax money, and the new benches will be of hostile design with extra spikes below them just to make sure the homeless won’t come. Also they might “feel pressured” to employ a “security” guard that regularly kicks out the homeless in increasingly cruel fashion. For safety reasons, of course.
Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it, only that the current decision makers won’t stop to be ass hats. They need their asses kicked.
Security guards because the cops are busy shooting at people that try to ride without a ticket.
That may be how that altercation started, but it’s pretty dishonest to say that’s why they shot at him.
The fact that anyone disagreed with you is a sign of how problematic this country is.
“this country”
Which?
The one that contains the NYC metro.
Can we though? Are you thinking of the shareholders at all?!? Someone’s going to have a tough time having only 4 holiday homes to choose from… 😬
JUST 4? ARE YOU INSANE?
First of all two of those are under a cold front right now, and one of them is having maintenance done in the West courtyard (noisy from 3pm-3:30pm if you are within 6 bedrooms of it, which I assure you, we won’t be) and the fourth one we were just at 2 years ago so it’s a little much to vacation there again that soon.
Please think before you speak.
My apologies and condolences for any tribulations my thoughtfulness may have bestowed upon you. In my haste to protect my interests and that of my colleagues, i spoke before fully considering the gravity of my statements 🫠
My people will contact your people for an appropriate settlement.
Removed by mod
It’s the NYC Subway. It’s not a company, it’s government mass transit. They had big problems with homeless people harassing people and the cops weren’t doing much. Ridership was dropping. So they did the only thing they could do.
It sucks, but what do you expect from the subway? A solution to homeless people? It’s for getting people to where they want to go, not for being a shelter.
Taking Benches away is LITERALLY the ONLY Option! How can you Expect Police Officers to do anything when there’s FARE JUMPERS that need to be SHOT!
There are solutions, for example arms between seating positions to make laying down impossible; sharp fins between seating positions to make laying down uncomfortable
These are common worldwide
Keep the benches, and pressure the system to help house and treat the underlying issues of homelessness.
New York City already provides shelter space for anyone who asks. It’s the city’s obligation according to the state constitution. (This is one reason why so many migrants came to NYC.) The homeless people in the subway system generally don’t want to go to a shelter.
As for treating the underlying issues: many of these people are either schizophrenics or drug addicts. There’s no straightforward treatment for either condition.
Guess that solves it, then. Good chat.
If the solution was as easy as you think it is, someone would have already done it.
It doesn’t make profits, that’s why people haven’t done it. They’ll bend over backwards to help if it’s insanely profitable. Short term profits, to be exact
Generally the only thing I think about shareholders is feeding them into a grinder feet first.
Won’t homeless people just sleep on the ground now?
Not if we can get some proper sidewalk spikes.
Hi Jeremy, we’re aware your feet are bleeding while trying to catch a train, but homeless people were sleeping on the ground.
Jeremy’s at fault for not wearing proper shoes, of course.
Realistically, it would be little rebar studs sticking a few millimeters out of the concrete. Refer to them as traction devices and suddenly you are a hero.
And if you’re Adidas you call it a comfortable massage…
The bare ground is way colder than a bench, since air is a good thermal insulator.
Is that how that works? I’m not trying to be antagonistic or anything, I just heard the opposite is true when it comes to why bridges develop ice sooner than typical roadways do; because the ground holds more heat than the cold air does
Sleep on the floor of your basement to find out.
Don’t have one, lend me yours?
It’s essentially the same thing, just on opposite ends. the ground leeches heat from warm bodies because it’s big and cool. A bridge freezes first because there isn’t ground that also has to freeze. Both are insulated from the ground, but one is hotter and one is colder than the ground temperature.
The reason bridges form ice before roads is that they are exposed to cold air on all sides and have lower total thermal mass, so conduction from the bridge to the air allows the temperature of the bridge surface to drop faster. The ground has nearly infinite thermal mass, and it takes a long(er) time for ambient air temperature to affect the surface temperature.
When you say “the ground holds more heat” you’re talking about that thermal mass. The temperature of the air is colder than the temperature of the ground, so yes from that perspective it “holds more heat.” But the temperature of a human is much much higher than the ground, and conduction is an extremely effective way to pull heat out of a human.
Yep! Slept on benches, chairs, and the ground when I was homeless. The ground is the worst for temperature (I’m technically homeless again, but at a shelter in a bed).
You said you’re at a shelter, but do you also take advantage of assistance from the government for looking for someplace? If this is too personal i understand.
I do, they have an attached program to help get people into housing.
That’s good, glad to hear it. Take advantage of anything they offer. Keep on keeping on
I hope things turn around for you soon.
A bridge will change temperature faster, because the ground had a lot of thermal mass, but concrete will conduct heat away from your body much faster than wood will, assuming both are at the same temperature.
Homeless people are desperate. They’ll sleep outside on the fucking pavement if it has an overhang and nobody bothers them. A place with walls and heating is fucking precious to em.
You seem to assume that any logic or reason was used in the decision making that led to this action. But I assure you, as soon as racism, classism, or any other form of bigotry enters the process, any reason left jumps out of the window.
Marvelously constructed.
The really wild thing about homelessness and cost of living in general is that the government is sitting on well over 1 billion acres of land for agricultural use and they could quite literally hand out a quarter acre to anyone who really just needs it and it wouldn’t put a dent in anything.
I know, I know, there’s quite a bit more to it than that, but holy shit, there is quite a misconception about the value of land and if you’re rifling through a dumpster in order to not starve things probably look quite different
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
It’s essentially useless to most people with the money to do those things too.
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
Edit: I better put a /s up
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, 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
Bruh, I work in homeless services. Egad man, get a grip
The government doing council housing would probably go really well
You don’t even need to go that far (though this is not an argument in favour of the government keeping a deathgrip on that land) - in the USA, like in pretty much every developed nation (and many others, I’m sure) there are more empty houses than there are homeless people in need of them.
What you neglect to take in to account is that homelessness is 100% a deliberate and essential part of capitalism. Homelessness is the threat of what will happen to you if you don’t sell your labour for whatever the capitalists decide it’s worth, and it must remain present and visible at all times to maintain that power.
Homelessness isn’t being solved because those in power needed it, not because there is any shortage of anything at all (homes, food, money, community support - all exist in abundance and yet are controlled and manipulated to create artificial scarcity to maximise profits).
I won’t disagree but it also blows my mind that I get downvoted for being uppity about how we don’t do anything about it, with no explanation behind the downvotes. Am I being a callous asshole or something? I sincerely believe and feel as though we could use resources in a more amiable way
I also just want to add that being an anarchist, one of the most common responses we get from people who aren’t to our ideas (that are almost all entirely outside of the box capitalism forces us to think within), is basically “that’s not a perfect solution therefore it isn’t worth of any attention or consideration”, as if the current system is perfect (E: or taken the time to properly understand our views in the first place).
I would class is as part appeal to tradition in defence of cognitive dissonance, part being so heavily indoctrinated they’re incapable of even imagining a society that functions in any other way but the current (even though how we live now is an insignificant blip in the timeline of human history), so their instinct is to reject anything that threatens the (patently false) sense of security they get from what they know (which in this case, includes shit like dropping homeless people on an empty plot and expecting them to be grateful, which is why they mistakenly assumed that’s what you meant).
Complaining about downvotes? That’s a downvote.
Adding nothing to the discussion? Believe it or not, downvote.
I can’t speak for the people who downvoted you (I didn’t even see that thread since I had the first person to reply blocked, so I had to go in private browser to check it out), I don’t think you’re being callous, you made a valid point, and I’m sure you didn’t mean we should just dump homeless people on empty plots of land and call it a day, but also provide all the other things that person pointed out would be needed. I think maybe some people just don’t see providing the other necessities as an obvious, or even acceptable part of your suggestion, but that is a different matter for them to explain, since I can’t.
Either way, try not to take downvotes to heart, they’re just anonymous internet pixels, they don’t actually matter (E: though I definitely understand how they can be discouraging and even confusing at times).
Totally fucked up and i hope someone in NY with a mobility issue files an ADA complaint with this easy online form
Nice link, too bad it’ll probably start 404ing in 2 months :(
Isn’t this some sort of violation of the ADA? I imagine some people need to be able to sit down for disability reasons. Someone should file suit against the MTA and the city.
It is, it even mentions disabled people in the post, but an ADA violation isn’t the magic bullet people think it is, someone still has to be able to take on whatever organisation has made the violation, and their lawyers, and win, before anything changes.
If I were an evil engineer I’d make retractable benches built into the walls that cost money to pull out. If I were a public official I’d have a subscription package for $60/yr that lets you use all the benches in the city. Must have a valid drivers license to purchase.
I would let anyone extend the bench but if the systems detects the user doesn’t have a valid subscription it folds back into the wall compressing the person into a chunky soup.
I would name these benches after our favorite economic model - the meat grinder.
The detection algorithm is also trash and may decide to eat you anyway, as well.
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
I would go sleep on one the night my subscription is about to expire.
Until they finally just make the suicide booths, people would just use your benches.
(I absolutely think we can/are able to normalise this)
I hope you’re not either of those things…
I would hack that system and provide cards to homeless people that give them free access to all benches in the city.
Boom, problem solved. With capitalism!
It’s not a train station platform’s job to solve all of society’s problems. During rush hour a train station platform is extremely overcrowded. It’s a serious issue and one of the top reasons people choose to avoid transit, which makes climate change dramatically worse.
Hostile architecture in parks and other open spaces and actual fucking housing is where you should be spending your lobbying effort.
Yeah, and some people want or need to sit.
Or anywhere. They have the influence, they can use that and their resources to help create real change.
I gotta say, and maybe it’s just me, but the reaction to this stuff is so much better on Lemmy than it was on Reddit. Redditors seem to hate the homeless.
Won’t someone think of the {real-estate values}
Just for transparency’s sake before I go into this, my wife is second from the top at the library.
The library here really did have to remove benches outside in a couple of places (in part) because of homeless people. Not because they were sleeping on them, there are other places outside the library where the homeless can sleep and the library does what it can to help the local homeless community.
Unfortunately, some (far, far from most) of the local homeless around the library were either very publicly using drugs or getting so fucked up on those drugs (or possibly just having a really bad mental illness episode) that they were harassing people and scaring kids. So when it came time to replace all of the benches since they got too old, they decided that they would not replace some of them.
There was definitely a big outcry about how the library was being anti-homeless, but it was nuts because there were people on the other side still complaining about how the library always stinks because they let the homeless people in there. I may be biased because of my wife, but I’m also a regular patron and I’m pretty much on their side on this one. It was becoming a huge issue and they really didn’t want to keep getting the cops involved because they rightfully don’t trust what the cops might do with the homeless and only end up calling them as a last resort.
Society has absolutely failed those people though. There is no question about that. But at some point, the library had to draw a line at how accommodating they could be.
One homeless person decides to do drugs in front of the library. I guess we have to remove all the benches and make everything very inconvenient for everyone.
The one person does a thing so we have to take it away rule doesn’t apply to people with houses.
“Oh look somebody stabbed somebody to death with a knife. We better take all the knives away from everyone.” This would never happen.
What if a homemed person did drugs in the library (which probably happened statistically)? Would you close up the library?
One homeless person decides to do drugs in front of the library. I guess we have to remove all the benches and make everything very inconvenient for everyone.
That is not even close to what happened. Why are you just making shit up? Also, see my replies to others about how the library you hate is doing much more than you personally could ever possibly do to help the homeless.
What do you mean, “See my replies”? Do you think people get paid to post on here? If you had something you wanted to add, add it to your initial comment. I don’t have all day.
Sorry my dude, doing a bunch of other stuff for homeless, doesn’t absolve you of anything. You do good stuff for homeless, great! Plus 20 points to Gryffindor. You take away benches, not great. - one point to Gryffindor.
I’m sorry my dude you got to deal with the negative one and why you got it.
Again, this doesn’t make you a bad person to remove benches, what makes you a bad person is doing s*** like pretending you’re not part of the problem. It’s fine. I’m part of the problem too. The problem is systemic.
Okay, well since you’re lazy, I’ll help you:
The library allows homeless people to be inside it from open to close. They give them free internet. They give them free help filling out necessary government forms. They hang around just to chat. They allow homeless people to sleep outside all around the building. They are literally building a shower and a washer/dryer facility in the new auxiliary library free for anyone to use.
In America, your local public library does more to help homeless people than anything you have probably done yourself, but I guess since they haven’t personally solved the problem, they’re the worst of the oppressors.
And:
As I told someone else- homeless people can be in the library from open to close. They can sleep on library property. They have free access to all library services including free internet, help accessing all kinds of government aid, and just having someone to talk to them if they’re lonely. In another branch, the library is putting in a shower and a washer/dryer for anyone to use for free.
But yes, they took away a few benches because of problem people rather than calling the cops.
Not that it will help, since I didn’t remove anything. I made it clear from the top that my wife is the one work works at this library. You’re not only too lazy to read other people’s responses, you’re too lazy to read what you’re responding to.
But please prove me wrong and tell me how you’ve done so much more for the homeless than this and other public libraries. Go for it.
I’m surprised that someone who has a wife who’s done so much for homeless doesn’t understand the very basic point I’m trying to make.
Your wife doesn’t absolve herself of removing benches by doing a million things for the homeless. It doesn’t work that way. It has never worked that way. And it will never work that way.
Pretending that it does, does not help homelessness. It hurts it big time. It hurts homelessness way more than removing benches. Because you are pretending that you can take anything away from them as long as you make up for it in other ways. By your metric not by theirs.
Also I never said I did a lot for homeless people. I think I volunteered at a food bank once. But I never took anything away from them. But I am still part of the problem like everyone else is.
Apparently except for you, You’re a special birthday boy who has a wife that does a lot of stuff for homeless people.
Good job not responding to almost anything I said. It proves you don’t read.
I read it all, I only responded to the parts that I felt were worth responding to. The rest was hot garbage from somebody who’s a special birthday boy.
I think any fair interpretation of his info is that the homeless are given all sorts of reasonable accommodations even at that library including places to sit and rest, but they still sometimes elected to use an inappropriate space even while being given a choice.
Like if you built a whole guest house in your yard open to homeless and they leave it empty and break into your living room instead. You wouldn’t be anti homeless because you wanted them in the well equipped shelter with beds and sofas instead of your couch.
I think you’ve missed my point. I am not pro let homeless do whatever they want. I never claim to be that.
I am pro, if you take benches away from everyone because of a homeless person. You should own that.
It doesn’t make anyone a bad person, because everyone takes away stuff from homeless people. It’s a systemic problem.
But if you pretend that you had no choice, or that it was the right thing to do, then you’re full of shit.
It’s like if a politician gets caught insider trading. Yeah, everyone does it. Does that mean it’s a good idea to stand up and say “I had no choice”? No you stand up and say " I did it, everyone does it, it’s not right. It makes us a lot of money. Let’s have a conversation about it."
the local homeless around the library were either very publicly using drugs
Biggest drug dealers in America - the Sackler family - weren’t worth our time to punish. So some guy who washed out on Percocets and can only afford Fentanyl shouldn’t have a place to sit.
There was definitely a big outcry about how the library was being anti-homeless, but it was nuts because there were people on the other side still complaining about how the library always stinks because they let the homeless people in there.
In America you have two options -
- pretend homelessness and addiction aren’t happening
- destroy public property in a scorched earth campaign against drug use
The very idea of housing, treatment, and rehabilitation is too socialist to consider.
Biggest drug dealers in America - the Sackler family - weren’t worth our time to punish. So some guy who washed out on Percocets and can only afford Fentanyl shouldn’t have a place to sit.
I didn’t say being publicly intoxicated, I said publicly using drugs. As in they were shooting up while kids were being taken to storytime past them on the way to the library.
The library allows homeless people to be inside it from open to close. They give them free internet. They give them free help filling out necessary government forms. They hang around just to chat. They allow homeless people to sleep outside all around the building. They are literally building a shower and a washer/dryer facility in the new auxiliary library free for anyone to use.
In America, your local public library does more to help homeless people than anything you have probably done yourself, but I guess since they haven’t personally solved the problem, they’re the worst of the oppressors.
I didn’t say being publicly intoxicated, I said publicly using drugs. As in they were shooting up while kids were being taken to storytime past them on the way to the library.
We have a solution for this as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervised_injection_site
Proven highly effective for reducing crime, mitigating the need for emergency response, curtailing disease spread, and channeling addicts to rehabilitation clinics
But because it comes off as permissive and benevolent, rather than punitive and prohibitionary it remains Haram in much of the US.
In America, your local public library does more to help homeless people than anything you have probably done yourself
It’s a public service staffed with dozens of people. Of course a single person isn’t going to do more in spare time than a team of people doing the work professionally.
But that doesn’t excuse the rest of the state for tearing out local infrastructure as a means of tormenting the homeless.
“I did two good things so I have permission to do one bad thing” isn’t sounds public policy.
From my initial post:
Society has absolutely failed those people though. There is no question about that. But at some point, the library had to draw a line at how accommodating they could be.
But at some point, the library had to draw a line
It’s not the library staff making these decisions. Its inevitably the city council or the governor
It was not in this case, it was the chief administrator of the library.
Deciding on which benches are placed in the subway?
NIMBY City, USA.
If only they had somewhere to go other than a Library…
Read. They literally still sleep outside the library. The library has not driven them away. They took away benches so that they weren’t shooting up in front of toddlers going into the library.
As I told someone else- homeless people can be in the library from open to close. They can sleep on library property. They have free access to all library services including free internet, help accessing all kinds of government aid, and just having someone to talk to them if they’re lonely. In another branch, the library is putting in a shower and a washer/dryer for anyone to use for free.
But yes, they took away a few benches because of problem people rather than calling the cops.
What have you done to help the homeless?
As I said, if they had somewhere else to go to safely use, they wouldn’t be doing it on library benches. That’s who the NIMBY comment was directed toward, the councilmen or whoever that vote to remove those benches, but are almost certainly against having the actual solution because NIMBY.
Instead, just complain about how they smell or whatever, and shuffle them around somewhere else.
I agree we should build a homeless shelter right next to your house. And I’m sure you will be at the forefront to see that it happens…
Lol buddy, you don’t know where I live/work. No need to do that.
And where did I say “homeless shelter”?
Nice try at deflection.
And to continue the internet meme-- “I ain’t your buddy, Pal.”
I am not meming.
And it’s not deflecting. I’m not talking about homeless shelters, I am talking about comprehensive, government-funded, public housing (it doesn’t have to be shitty, look at what Finland has done). I am talking about safe injection sites. I am talking about social workers on the ground, every day, making sure that these people have what they need.
YIMBY. Bring it all on.
I already have people sleeping next to my house so that would be a huge improvement. YIMBY!
Why is it a library’s job to facilitate drug use?
Maybe you are amalgamating all of the replies to your comment into one user, but I don’t know why you’re so aggressive… I don’t think I attacked you in any way.
I’m not sure why you are taking what I said so personal… Are you a councilman?
Edit: Damn that was a quick edit, I could have sworn your comment was much different when I replied. Now mine just looks like nonsense.
Why is it a library’s job to facilitate drug use?
Please go back and look at my initial reply, I literally said the opposite.
The thing is that you can give people every resource and they still will go where they feel like it. Whether because they don’t care or because they lack the mental facilities to make reasonable decisions due to mental health issues. There may not be a very good and safe answer for dealing with some folks.
Absolutely should give the resources, but be aware that won’t ensure they use those resources instead of doing things a way that is unsafe and/or unfairly inflicting problems on folks.
If only we had some real life data to see if things like safe injection sites work….… oh well I guess we’ll just have to make assumptions instead.
He laid out that that sort of accommodation is available, just that some people will still fail to avail themselves of it.
It may be even mostly working around his library, but that doesn’t mean there still are people falling to use those facilities.
My local Fred Meyer starting doing some hostile shit recently. For one, they have AI in the self checkout cameras that watches you to make sure you don’t place anything from the cart to the bagging area without scanning. Which includes bags that I brought from home… My wife turned around and bumped her butt on it, and it gave an alarm that it wasn’t scanned.
They recently added railing from the checkouts to the exit, which would be fine if the liquor section didn’t have a fast checkout in the middle of the store. I just slip through the bars with my receipt, and the guy at the door says nothing and just quickly marks your receipt without reading anything.
It’s such an inconvenience for saving a few dollars of stollen food. It’s ridiculous.
I have and will continue to walk out mid transaction when I notice particularly egregious shit like that. It’s the least I can do. Actively talk into the camera, and make sure they KNOW exactly why I’m walking out. Does it do any good? No, but it makes me feel a bit better.
Then, what, you go to a different store? I imagine you were there to buy stuff?
Yes. One that has less shit “security” practices. Or that properly staffs their checkout. Or whatever reason I chose to walk out.
So you’ve spent time shopping, only to get to check out and just leave everything there and leave, go to a different store, and repeat? Have lots of free time do you?
More time than willingness to give up on this matter. It costs them time and money, too, and that’s enough to feel worth it to me.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Not sure how getting rid of benches stops people from fighting.
Being an asshole is not related to whether or not you have a home.
The point is that the problem you’re looking for an instant solution for, was decades in the making and has to do with a structural neglect of mental health care, housing problems and war on drugs.
You say you don’t give a shit about the reasons, but it’s much like ignoring every warning light and than complaining it’s expensive to fix the car.
We are not ignoring it, but there is no end in sight. Especially with Trump coming. So be less judgemental because most ny subway riders do not care at this point and just want to ride in peace while being judged by people like you
I’m not judging anyone. I thinks the shit is hitting the fan everywhere, also where I live. It’s fucking hard and it’s annoying that so many get manipulated into voting against it own interests.
The only remedy is too cling together and stick to it values. The apathy cannot win. We can’t put our heads in the sand and go along blaming other people for our troubles (whichever race/creed/other).
The mask slips, but who will do anything about it?
