465
Just 2 people.
(i.imgur.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
465 points (91.9% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
35455 readers
138 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Most homeless are in the big cities, most churches are out in the boonies. The homeless are very unlikely to accept being bussed to a flyover state to sleep in a church in bumfuck nowhere. For a myriad of reasons.
Keep in mind also that a lot of them have a very hard time accepting any help due to past trauma as well.
It's not a situation with a quick fix. Really the first step isn't even ensuring housing for the homeless, it's making sure we don't get more homeless. We likely can't save a subset of today's homeless because they don't want/or won't accept any help that comes with any strings (like no drugs or just they can't trash the place). But we can ensure no-one else ends up on the streets by beefing up mental healthcare and social services.
Churches "sponsor" people in other countries all the time. They could do the same for two people in the nearest city, they don't have to force people to relocate.
There is actually an easy fix - build houses and give them to people. I remember when "Habitat for Humanity" was so much more prominent in churches.
I can't tell if you are purposefully taking the post literally just to be able to shoot it down... But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt
Just think of how many homeless people would actually refuse to live in any of these Mega mansions
Or better yet, imagine what these "churches" could do with the literal millions they spend in mansions and private jets to help the homeless... You know, if they actually care about that and were not just tax avoidance operations
Since I'm not American I keep forgetting about your for profit churches. The concept is just too foreign to me. When I think church I think of 300 year old cold stone building in the countryside.
Still there are homeless that would refuse, some from not believing or trusting you, some from not wanting to relocate even if it means that level of comfort, some from being deep into addiction thinking that they'll be forced to get clean. And some will take you up on it and just absolutely trash the place trying to steal anything not bolted down.
That said the vast majority would for sure jump on it and thrive. So if it was at all possible to make happen it would be a good idea.
America definitely has its old, historic churches, but they're far from common.
We have so many other kinds of churches, huge mega churches that essentially have a whole campus. Tiny churches in shopping centers. Growing up I went to a little church that was in the middle of an otherwise normal neighborhood.
Megachurches are the minority of churches though
I think you're forgetting that a lot of churches are small fellowships co-opting an office space or like the other commenter said, out in the middle of nowhere. This wasn't a post about mega churches, but it's a fair point.
No I get it, not all churches really can... Nor it is assumed a feasible plan that they may all perfectly distribute the homeless population.
The point is that most churches only talk the talk. I was raised Catholic and never participated in church that did anything more than collect money to donate (and for itself of course). Sure they had some activities and talked a lot about helping others but it seemed the expectations was that we would go out and do good on their behalf
Most people here are taking the post literally. A smaller, not insignificant but smaller, number are reading satire/irony (regarding tax exemption) into it but that does not mean there is only one valid interpretation.
Pro tip, if you need to reject the majority reading of a rhetorical post in order to defend it, that’s an indication you might be the one who is approaching in bad faith. Either that or the post is indefensible and needs rewritten.
I happen to agree with your position too, but just be careful about calling that commenter out for something as benign as taking a straightforward text literally.
They have a hard time "accepting help" because as often as not; it isn't really help.
Its libs jacking themselves off with the monkey paw; doing awful shit using nice words so they can feel good while being assholes.
Sure you get a room and three meals a day! No pets, must detox first, curfew but also you must have a job, and also dont mind the bars haha yes we do have to lock you in.
I mean, even before you get as far as the opinion of the homeless, most churches aren't going to want to host two high-needs, possibly substance-addicted people from the big city in their atrium ("think of the children!"), which is the point of this.
It's a situation that absolutely has a quick fix, just not a super cheap quick fix. It's far easier to not formally address it, and leave the cost on them and whoever happens to be around them. There's more than enough resources out to fix it if there was the political will.
Also there is a cheap quick fix, because there is adequate empty housing. Landlords just refuse to rent it. The people just need to confiscate unused housing after x (x being an appropriate number for the area) days not being a primary residence.
Not the government. The people. And if the resident leaves/dies, that housing goes to someone new. The landlord never gets it back. That's important; they need to be afraid, but have an easy out (just put somebody in there, lower rent, etc)
I mean, taxing away houses and then giving them back to the homeless still counts as an expenditure. You're probably going to want to give them each a nurse and a meal plan as well, if you want them to stick around, because as mentioned these people often have persistent issues.
The people have never done shit. Not once in history.
Taxing is the government. They work for the owners, not the people dying on the street. Governments are all, at this moment in the supreme court, advocating for the right to criminalize sleeping outside even when there's literally no other legal option.
Oh. I guess every single history source I've ever read lied then. Thanks for informing me.
What have you been reading? Pretty much the only place where the people magically, spontaneously organise is in political speeches. The Patriots wouldn't have existed without guys like Jefferson, the French revolution was run by rogue military factions and exclusive political clubs, and the Leninists have it right in their name.
Oh. Shit magical and spontaneous? So there's nothing other than a master with a whip and a fucking wizard?
Its not what i favor, or what im proposing, but spontaneous organization does happen. Youve never been in a disaster, or started digging a hole at the beach, have you?
Kind of, yeah. The way I see it it's a human limitation; we need a certain level of indirection to pull off anything bigger than a band of hunter-gatherers. Some systems are more whippy than others, though.
Actually, yes I have, but never have I seen more than a handful of people get involved at once, and I never heard from that dude who started directing traffic again. I've also seen the bystander effect. Never in history. Maybe on the beach, but not in history.
You've never tried to organise any kind of activism, have you?
So, the beach thing. Why does it happen, and why does it 'not happen anywhere else'?
Have you read 'a paradise built in hell'?
Did you read my point about believing in the existence of, but not favoring spontaneous organization. A deliberate but headless structure is possible! They're actually really cool! Good thing too, because strict hierarchies are wildly inefficient and trend towards flattening the territory to match the map, which tends to lead to fascism.
And if I believed it was only a fuhrer or a grand wizard, I'd fucking kill myself and take as many as I could with me. Thankfully I've seen (and executed) proof to the contrary.
As far as I can tell, being in a novel enough situation emergency puts people in a different headspace. After a while, normality creeps back in, and if the emergency continues it looks less like a community pulling together and more like Haiti or parts of Myanmar. Mostly, though, it's an empirical observation. Besides what we've covered, it's hard as shit to get people to show up or care about activism, and if a meeting gets big enough it stops working, so you have to appoint someone to head whatever thing. This proves true over and over again.
I don't think that automatically means Hitler, though. Representative democracy seems to work if set up just right. Hopefully it's here to stay.
Theres this tendency to completely ignore the effects of peer pressure and habituation and culture and very scary men with guns pointing them at you in these arguments, and its deeply bullshit.
We tend to treat a hyper-competitive hyper-alienating authoritarian context as some sort of fundamental trait of humanity, rather than some shit we work very very hard to maintain.
And its nonsense? And I can prove it. I prefer deliberate rhizomatoc organization; its more efficient long term, but I can prove spontaneous organizing happens anywhere it isnt actively shut down, and I'll show you, in a totally non-ideological context: go to any beach, and dig a hole. Just pick a spot and start digging. Watch what happens. Nothings wrong, nobody's in trouble, its not even really for anything, and you'll have more help than you can use.
I could theorize why (being on a team feels good. Doing things is a primal joy. People generally want things to get done, etc) but the fact is; it happens, and tryimg to find reasons why it can't be the basis of a social order, or at least disaster response; seems very unnecessarily pessimistic.
That's a failure if your organizing systems. Read more (managerial and information) theory? Seriously though; hierarchal systems do not scale. Spontaneous horizontal systems don't either, but you do realize there are deliberate horizontal systems, right? That you can apply going in or retrofit to an existing organization?
Real representative democracy has never been tried? No true Scotsman? Because I'm not seeing one, and if you are, you need (new) glasses.
Oh honey. I... Maybe some acid would help this go down easier. I'm here for a hug if you need it.
Well, it's an interesting point. I've had an anarchist point out democracy was ridiculous until very recently, too. That all my lived experience and every documented sustained system is down to invisible training, and that it has no ontological momentum is an extraordinary claim, though. I need more than holes to support it; I don't even live near a beach.
No, just someone who's willing to double-volunteer. It's often me, and I have the charisma of a half-cooked noodle. I'm okay over text at least. I'm not thinking of the splashy figurehead positions.
Maybe the politicians I sometimes work with count, but honestly they just seem like normal salespeople, and I think a few of them even know what they are. In the end, nobody is in control of the big picture.
I'm good on information theory. No offense, but managerial theory seems like complete circlejerk. I don't know, do you have an example of a big horizontal organisation that does things in meatspace? I've seen a couple that say that, but then you realise they have one guy that's there "just to assist" or whatever, and you need that guy to sign off on use of any resources. As a peer, of course. /s
Well, it's certainly not direct democracy, the voters have no clue. But on the other hand, casual bribery isn't really a thing anymore in long-established democracies. Open corruption is bad for re-election, you see.
Democracy is great! Democracy is not made of elections. Elections (not voting. Elections. Though majority fptp elections are pretty undemocratic) are anti Democratic. Democracy can only happen when people are involved. Like actually involved. If you want more than holes; read the damn book I recommended. It goes over this at book length.
See, that can be a thing that happens, because that's how people know how to do things; the familiar form they defaukt to even if they know it sucks. But also, I feel like its often a legal requirement in the strictly hierarchalist systems we inhabit. Move to something that cares less about laws, and you'll see less of that.
They tend to be pretty secretive, because when they're not the cops murder them or arrest them for terrorism. See: 'food not bombs'. Show me a big hierarchal organization that isn't a recursive circle jerk shit show completely alienated from its original stated purpose used to pump up the egos and bank accounts of a fistful of kleptocrats who have barely any idea what the fuck their organization was supposed to be actually doing in the first place.
That's kind of my point. When you try to get all the information through a few choke points (which individuals become) you have to reduce it massively until its useless, you have to reduce the considerations that go into decisions until they're barely (or just not) better than random, made entirely for reasons of the decision system and not at all for reasons to do with facts on the ground. The power they weild ceases to be a power to help; in that structure it literally can't be-every form of action besides violence requires at least some understanding, and the bandwidth just isnt there, and even if it was the data has been compressed and attenuated to nonsense by the time it gets to the big man. But its still power, and its still there, and it inevitably maps to the interests of the people who believe they should be in control, which means flattening the territory to match the map, which means culling the (human) outliers. So you cede all your autonomy to a hierarchy, which then loses the power to help you, and uses everything you gave it to have some white supremacist covered in military surplus shit kick down your door, shoot your dog, and lock you in a cage for feeding hungry people. They're not actually in control, its a fantasy built on a mountain off terrorism, but it exists.
Some of it is. But the scientific stuff is interesting, studies communication and decision making. People talking about this stuff without a knowledge of that, or a broad knowledge of history and political theory, come off as ignorant as fuck. If you haven't studied human coordination, even casually, why spout off about your opinions?
So... Gimme an example of what you mean by 'long established' because I'm under the united states right now, and, uh...
Okay so youre just imagining a fantasy world based on 'should', and there's no danger of you ever actually looking outside without a blindfold.
Okay, I'll start saying elections for whatever remains of this conversation. I'm not convinced ordinary people actually taking interest in groundwater allowances far away could ever happen, which is what it sounds like you're talking about.
I'll put it on the reading list. My expectations are low though, TBH.
If you get arrested, you can't just slip the cop a hundred and leave. In many countries, that's almost always an option, to the point they'll just straight up tell you they want a "brown envelope" or whatever the local euphemism is. This was the case in all civilisations historically.
I'm familiar. My impression is that it's a brand for throwing potlucks.
Usually they splinter within like a year and then hate each other forever, if that's the sort of group you're talking about. If they don't, it's because they grow a governance system, and just push out dissenters periodically.
I have. Anthropology is great, sociology and political science are neat too. You may have noticed my interest in history. Just not "management philosophies", except enough to realise they're largely snake oil for people faking competence.
We all are.
This is actually neat to hear, so it gets it's own section. That's exactly how I think of it. The difference is that as far as I can tell it's a bottleneck between every single human, including us right now. Nobody understands things handled more than a couple of degrees of separation away, which is insufficient to directly run a complex industrial economy.
When organisations work it's because they're self-correcting regardless of some opacity. Yes, that always involves guns, even if it's at the very abstract level; pacifism gets you killed.
Well it seems you know so much about these organizations than me, despite my decade of experience, and so much more about the phenomenon, despite my years of study. I defer to your expertise.
This conversation is not generalizable to the population at large!
What youre talking about is attenuation. Also, how is an authority immune to this? Nobody who makes decisions is within five degrees of normal. There are ways around this. I can recommend a dense podcast or a dense doorstopper book+a normalish book as a primer.
K
Nah, your way doesn't threaten anyone in power.
All right, well, I'll just end off with "Fuhrers don't control anything". Look at Gorbachev; he tried to change the system and it launched multiple coups against him until he was gone. Organisations (or institutions, or whatever word you'd prefer) run themselves, there's no such a thing as a leader.
Last word is yours, I guess.
So institutions are magic and unaccountable inhuman systems are a good thing?
I remember a story about a guy, world war one vet, that war fucked him up, became a rabid Nazi literally in it for the dehumanization and (the 'I jack off to being turned into paste by a beautiful perfect machine' itallian futurist) type philosophy, Until he saw what the Bolshevik reactionaries did with Russia.
He was immediately and unironicly like 'hey, wow, this is so much worse. I'm defecting to these guys now.' and then did it.
You remind me of that. This is praise of your novelty, condemnation of your everything else. Big 'thanks, I hate it!' Vibes
The second shittiest roommate I ever had was a loud evangelical.
I was at the time actively the closest thing she would ever meet to a particular famous dude who died on the thing she worshipped, who she claimed to care about.
When she started fucking with my shit while I was out, I just made a bunch of copies of the house key and handed them out, so I'd have people to watch my door for me. Started cooking big dinners. She couldn't actually say anything.
The trick is; don't Fucking ask. Point out that sleeping in the park sucks and will get you killed by police, but meetings in the park are genuinely pleasant (unless climate change is real). They might shoot you, but they won't be able to argue.
Apologies I didn't understand what this means, did you hand out keys so your friends would randomly be over and she would be afraid of getting caught?
Friends? A couple, I hope I can call friends, but the rest just went to anyone unhoused who wanted a warm place to sleep/hang and a hot meal.
On that I agree 100%