1409
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] heckypecky@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I'm with you that the state should provide housing for them.

But schizophrenia is a serious disease and is prevalent (20%) in this group. Those people need psychiatric help. Only a home won't fix it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6880407/

[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

I do not think an elevated incidence of a specific mental illness among a population makes it justifiable to legalize throwing them all into indefinite psychiatric detention without oversight or trial. I’m all for having facilities where schizophrenic people can get care they need in a safe environment. I’m not for using those institutions as homeless storage facilities because people can’t separate homelessness from mental illness in their head. You can and should address both separately.

[-] heckypecky@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

Nobody wants to stash all homeless people in psychiatric care, unlimited at that. That would overload their capacity thousandfold and makes no sense, this shit is expensive. Right now it seems you're pushing some kind of narrative... Can you back up your claims?

[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

What claims are you asking me to back up specifically? The meme above is evidence enough that people believe institutions are an appropriate solution to homelessness, but if you're looking for more evidence of those claims: you can find plenty such arguments in a cursory google search.

Any such policy would be de-facto unlimited because homeless people don't stop being homeless when you discharge them from an institution. You could just have them committed again.

this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
1409 points (97.3% liked)

DebunkThis

1071 readers
1 users here now

Debunking pseudoscience, myths, and spurious hogwash since 2010.

We are an evidence-based Reddit/Lemmy community dedicated to taking an objective look at questionable theories, dodgy news sources, bold-faced claims, and suspicious studies.

Community Rules:

Posting

Title formatting on all posts should be "Debunk This: [main claim]"

Example: "Debunk This: Chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay."

All posts must include at least one source and one to three specific claims to be debunked, so commenters know exactly what to investigate.

Example: "According to this YouTube video, dihydrogen monoxide turns amphibians homosexual. Is this true? Also, did Albert Einstein really claim this?"

NSFW/NSFL content is not allowed.

Commenting

Always try to back up your comments with linked sources. Just saying "this is untrue" isn't all that helpful without facts to support it.

Standard community rules apply regarding spam, self-promotion, personal attacks and hate speech, etc.

Links

Suggested Fediverse Communities

RFK Jr. Watch @lemm.ee - Discuss misinformation being spread by antivaxxer politician, Robert F Kennedy Jr.
Skeptic @lemmy.world - Discuss pseudoscience, quackery, and bald-faced BS
Skeptic @kbin.social - The above, just on Kbin
Science Communication @mander.xyz - Discuss science literacy and media reporting

Useful Resources

Common examples of misleading graphs - How to spot dodgy infographics
Metabunk.org - a message board dedicated to debunking popular conspiracies
Media Bias / Fact Check - Great resource for current news fact checking + checking a source's political bias
Science Based Medicine - A scientific look at current issues and controversies
Deplatform Disease - A medical blog that specifically counters anti-COVID-vaccine claims
Respectful Insolence - David Gorsky's blog on antivax shenanigans, politics, and pseudoscience

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS