“Well he is stealing your car but whatever I guess”
I’m going to rant a little here.
No one chooses to be a crackhead.
No one except that one AMA guy on Reddit aspires to be a drug addict when they grow up.
People make bad decisions from poverty and lack of education and social support, people self-medicate because they don’t have access to medical care, people get trapped in the “justice system’s” cycle of abuse and can’t get the help they need to pull out of their spiral…
And then, yes, they end up as homeless crackheads breaking into cars.
And none of that would have happened if we didn’t have a brutal capitalist caste system in the United States that relies on ruining people for its perpetuation. The system has to have poor people, has to have unemployed people, has to have homeless people, has to have drug addicts. Because the only reason the average worker tolerates the horrid conditions they work under is because they’re so afraid of poverty and homelessness they’d rather tolerate horrid conditions than risk losing their jobs.
The system needs a homeless underclass as an object lesson of the consequences of unemployment, so that when bosses threaten workers with unemployment, that threat has teeth.
The fact that every major city in the wealthiest nation in the world has thousands of homeless drug addicts on the street is not a bug in capitalism. It is deliberate. It is a feature. It is a weapon to terrify the worker and keep him in his place.
So sure, the dude is stealing your car, but what made him have to do that in the first place?
Junkies are junkies in every country. In Finland where we have extensive social safety nets and drug programs and housing provided for homeless they’ll still steal a bunch of shit. Because they always need more money for drugs.
It’s sad for them but also they can fuck right off from stealing from me.
Yes you’re going to have your failures that’s just the numbers game. Some people are just incapable of getting better even with help, but they’re few and far between.
The point is the numbers can be drastically lowered if we actually had the safety nets our taxes are supposed to pay for.
Yes the numbers can be lowered. But the point was, fucking hands off my car. Don’t care if it’s a junkie, drunkard or just opportunistic car thief.
I hear you bruv, but your car is still gone, tho
No, many crackheads absolutely choose to become such and, more importantly, to continue living that way throughout their lives despite intervention.
Stop telling people they don’t have agency or aren’t responsible for their actions or plight, for they absolutely are. They are exactly where they want to be.
I mean all it really takes is some bad decisions to start doing it to cause someone to end up getting hooked on it. Once they end up addicted you can’t really say they can just make the choice to stop on their own. And I mean you can’t really blame someone for going to drugs when their life is shit and they’re stuck living on the street with no way out. Now you can still blame them for any crimes they do after that but I don’t think the consequences for them should be prison, that will only make their problems worse. Instead we need places we can force these people to go that are focused on getting people clean and will have the resources to do that.
I see a bipartisan consensus on this in the non-mainstream(ish) left and right. If we could only agree on the causes, we could actually get shit done.
No, We have to agree on the solutions as well. Take abortions as an example, everyone wants less abortions, the left wants more contraception, education, social safety net programs, etc that would net result in less abortions. The right just wants to penalize abortions.
The right wants less abortions only in so much as they want to eliminate female agency.
If they really believed that abortion was murder then bombings of abortion clinics would be more common than picketing them.
I mean, obviously birth control is cheaper and easier for everyone, but that aside there should be as many as there needs to be. No one should have to carry a pregnancy to term against their will, and that shouldn’t be anyone else’s business or a political bargaining chip.
Don’t get me wrong, I definitely think the stronger argument to sway those on the fence is to emphasize that better access to birth control decreases abortions and banning abortion doesn’t actually reduce the abortion rate, it just makes it more dangerous. But like, that’s not why I take that position. Personal bodily autonomy is plenty of reason in my book, and I don’t feel a particular need to try to bring the number of abortions down.
But yeah, I’m sure it’s not a particularly fun medical procedure either.
Abortion is traumatic for everyone involved. We shouldn’t want abortions to be necessary in the first place. Decreasing the number of abortions is a good stance to have.
The way to do that is to help prevent the need for an abortion in the first place through the mentioned liberal policies.
Whereas conservatives essentially want to punish people for putting out fires without addressing the reason why fires keep happening.
Isn’t the enemy the aristocracy and not the bourgeoisie?
No.
They’re the same thing.
Are they though?
They’re two different classes.
The bourgeoisie is a class of business owners and merchants which emerged in the Late Middle Ages, originally as a “middle class” between peasantry and aristocracy.
I haven’t seen these characters in so long, wtf
What is it? It feels so familiar but I can’t place it.
Pretty sure it’s back at the barnyard
Back at the barnyard
The last panel I could read in his voice perfectly. But the italic text was some kind of audiobook guy.
