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.
The next step is blending them into a nutrient-rich slush that will be fed to people in workhouses
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?
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.
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
I don’t think this is just about conservatives, it’s also about the owner class and their quality of life. But def significant overlap.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/16/us-homeless-encampments-companies-profiting-sweeps
Revealed: how companies made $100m clearing California homeless camps Public spending on private sweep contractors is soaring across the state – and unhoused people allege poor treatment
This reminds of the gross, despicable private detention and private prison industry in America.
Hate to brake it to you, the “progressive” movement doesn’t have empathy either.
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
Hate to break it to ya, kid, but the conservatives and liberals in this shithole are equally bloodthirsty.
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
