3
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ReiRose@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Jokes on them, noise canceling headphones are cheaper than a house

[-] Undearius@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

This is from the city where it's illegal to be homeless. One man even collected over $100,000 in fines for being homeless.

Yeah, that'll help.

[-] Bonsoir@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's not "being homeless" that is illegal, though. It's drinking in public, begging or sleeping in the metro. And it sure is tough not staying in the metro during winter. There are some organisms that can provide shelter, but not enough for everyone, and it usually cost a couple dollars, which not everyone have everyday. And it's a real problem on both sides, as the metro was not meant to become a shelter for the homeless, and people have been complaining more and more that they feel unsafe there.

[-] zaph@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago

Sure "being homeless" isn't the crime itself but you're being naive if you don't think the laws make homelessness illegal. What are they supposed to do? Go find a piece of land no one has claim to and freeze to death?

[-] Bonsoir@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

And what are we supposed to do? Legalize all drugs and being drunk in public just to avoid having to fine them, and install beds everywhere in the Underground City (and in this post's case, in emergency stairwells at the Complexe Desjardins) with no regard for their regular use?
Sure, let's work on proposing more accessible legal alternatives. Just take note that these laws weren't created to punish the homeless, but to have a clean and safe public space - which have been degrading for some time now.

We could just house them. That seems to work.

[-] Bonsoir@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

That sound pretty much like the "If you're poor, just buy a house" people.
I think you don't know much about Montréal. There are solutions already in place to help homeless people who want to go out of the street, but the housing crisis is pretty new and it will take years to solve. It wasn't so bad a few years ago.

It's actually nothing like that at all. What you're describing is putting a societal problem on the shoulders of individuals. What I'm suggesting is that society should actually fix the problems it has created.

Every place that has taken a "housing first" approach has seen success out of it. But people insist on making the problem more complicated than it is, because we've built an entire society on the false idea that poor people somehow deserve to be poor and anything done to help them is somehow unjust.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago

Great way to lose customers

Having said that, what's up with the "unhoused" thing? It homeless. Are we now calling it differently because homeless is now all of the sudden insulting? How long until "unhoused" suddenly is a bad word?

Can we please just stop pushing changing words? Homeless is fine, you're without a home. It sucks, people should support you, not shun you, but changing words is just virtue signalling that doesn't do anything to make anything better for anyone

[-] VinesNFluff@pawb.social 0 points 3 weeks ago

but changing words is just virtue signalling that doesn’t do anything to make anything better for anyone

.... And if you are the type of neoliberal politician that wants to pretend they care about people while never actually doing anything to help anyone other than the megacorps when you get into power -- Then this is literally all you'll ever do for people. Linguistic fuckery. Making up new words for things. Fucking around with definitions. And you know that there will be an army of people who will defend this, and shoot down people who actually want to do something on grounds that they said the "wrong" words.

The argument for 'unhoused' is that it humanises the person -- But it's really pushing it.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, this... Stop haggling with words, actually do something to fix it

[-] VinesNFluff@pawb.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

Spoiler: they won't

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 weeks ago

Homeless what, exactly? Sorry, you're gonna need to throw in the word "person" just to be clear.

[-] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago

I'll asume y'all are stupid and privileged and not just cruel. Home can be a public shelter, it is about people. A house is a thing you rent or own.

Not everything is politics, virtue signaling or about you. We use different words because language changes, because society changes. That is why you don't speak Anglo-Saxon anymore.

It's about precision. The condition people are talking about is not having a house, regardless of whether they have a home. This is why unhoused is being used more often.

It's not part of an agenda, it is not about you. Grow up.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 weeks ago

Of course! Relax. It's more precise to be clear they're talking about people unhoused.

[-] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

Doesn’t this violate the Geneva convention ?

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev -1 points 3 weeks ago
[-] 13esq@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's a joke. The implication is that the repeated playing of Baby Shark could be considered torture, other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 0 points 3 weeks ago

Homeless people aren't POWs though, doesn't it only apply to POWs?

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

yeah it's completely legal to torture people so long as you don't call them your prisoners

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev -1 points 3 weeks ago

Dude, I'm not saying this is a cool and good thing to do lol, fuck them for doing this, for real. It's that the Geneva convention has to do with stuff relating to war and a lot of the things people say violate it often don't. Like people will say that tear gas is a Geneva convention violation but it actually says tear gas is allowable for controlling prison riots.

I just wish people would point to actually relevant documents when criticizing people for their misdeeds if they're bringing up documents. The truth is we shouldn't need some document to criticize this action. It's inherently disgusting. It distracts from the point when people bring up irrelevant things like the Geneva convention.

[-] Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee 0 points 3 weeks ago

Unhoused? Has homeless as a word been banned?

[-] sunbytes@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

I think the idea is to put the responsibility for housing onto society/authority as opposed to the victim.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 0 points 3 weeks ago

Doesn't homeless imply its society's fault too?

[-] sunbytes@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

Perhaps to some people, but to me it does sound like a homeless person just happens to be without.

Whereas an unhoused person has been let down by whoever is responsible for ensuring people are housed.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl -1 points 3 weeks ago

I dont see how. If anything, its just a matter of time until you see houseless as being their fault. Because the baggage is something you (and society in general) is adding. Its not implicit in the word itself.

[-] buzz86us@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

Ugh how did this super old song become a thing.. I swear people are getting dumber. I hated it when they sang it at summer camp, and I still hate it now.

[-] DillyDaily@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago
[-] AugustWest@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

I was forced to sing it in school in the 90s. Along with the Jamba The Hutt/McDonalds song.

[-] DillyDaily@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

This comment thread now feels uniquely American.

I have never heard those songs, in the 90s at school and scout camps in Australia we would sing Ging Gang Goolie, Alice the Camel, and Ain't no Flies.

Also for some reason we would chant about how ugly and unlovable we are and resign ourselves to eating worms.... Children's songs are so unhinged.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 weeks ago

We can solve homelessness once and for all by making every part of civilization just suck as much as possible. If literally no part of our society is capable of supporting safety and life, then all the homeless people will just move along

[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Homelessness? Oh, you mean unhousedness! Many of them are also unreadful and non-jobulated.

[-] Godwins_Law@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

What's the point of your comment?

this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
3 points (71.4% liked)

Not The Onion

12551 readers
593 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS