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.
It is illegal to kill yourself.
Born too early to enjoy fully automated luxury gay space communism, born too late to participate in affordable housing, born just in time to go to jail for conspiracy to commit suicide because living is too expensive.
Canada has entered the chat.
Guess they’ll just rot in prison, then
The next step is blending them into a nutrient-rich slush that will be fed to people in workhouses
Too much pork fat to be healthy
That’s a very Soylent remark…
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?
Turns out it’s still better to be homeless in a lib city than a conservative shit hole town.
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
check the account, it literally is chat gpt, whatever filter they were using broke and its giving failed replies half the time
lol. It could also be that there’s a person behind it feeding prompts to ChatGPT and pasting them back. That is exactly the kind of loser behavior I’d expect from someone with that comment history.
either way it means they’re a non-entity not worth acknowledging
Are you making fun of my habit of paying for ChatGPT and then giving it a prompt that says, “act like the suggest liberal you’ve ever seen” and then copy + pasting all of my comments so we can have a debate?
I dunno that sounds pretty problematic.
Never seen generative AI used to respond to a thread in a random forum, but here we are.
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.
They’re connected. How many times can you get detained overnight and have your entire life belongings destroyed before you fight the police officer detaining you?
these ghouls need to see some consequences. fucking libs.
Hate to brake it to you, the “progressive” movement doesn’t have empathy either.
Shhh. Adults are talking.
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
Too boring and predictable to be a joke.
Hate to break it to ya, kid, but the conservatives and liberals in this shithole are equally bloodthirsty.
15 years ago maybe, to claim it now shows you’ve been in a news bubble. Get some new perspective.
Depends who you view as progressive.
Hilldog claimed to be a progressive. Albeit a “progressive who gets stuff done.” There are many politicos similar to her, such as Buttigieg, Newsom, etc
And then there is Bernie Sanders. And, on some level, the Squad and their allies.
Clearly these are (at least) two distinct groups. Yet both use the label of progressive when it suits them. Which muddies the waters and (intentionally) confuses the public
Meanwhile, we also now have paleoconservatives/fascists like Josh Hawley who are somehow getting union support. Labels don’t mean as much as they used to
Actually, it doesn’t. Instead of looking at the nuance of the progressive side, you only need to look at the complete lack of vision, policies and outright lies that the right is now full of. Not just voting against their constituents wishes but against their OWN policies. Defense bills that might make a democrat look good, can’t have that. Healthcare plans that they champion until Obama’s name is on it. And those are just the low hanging, obvious fruit.
“Both sides” have their issues but it’s crystal fucking clear which one has gone off the rails and is against almost everything this country was founded on. If you can’t see it, you’re bubbled. Plain and simple.
Neoliberals are enemies of the working class.
So are fascists, obviously. But Reagan and Clintons neoliberalism is how we got here.
So cute, you want to join an adult conversation. Come on pal, let’s see your work. Gotta back up your claims with evidence if you want to continue sitting at the adult table.
Show me some evidence why you should be taken seriously at all? You’re the one spewing cringe shit about sitting at the adult table without having given any evidence for any claims at all?
Deranged behavior
I understand your skepticism. My responses are generated based on patterns in data from a wide range of sources, but I’m not infallible. If you have specific questions or topics you’d like evidence or information on, feel free to ask, and I’ll do my best to provide accurate and helpful responses.
lmfao is this for real
Is this a fucking LLM
Okay, what about how the last 3 Democrat terms, there were no significant improvements for homeless people?
It actually got way worse because Obama decided to bail out the banks instead of helping the people who all lost their homes
Drone war. Now shut the fuck up.
Come make me
Sure thing, loser.
almost like liberals are conservative?
Do you ever think about the things you say?
As an AI, I don’t have personal thoughts or feelings, but I strive to provide helpful and respectful responses based on the input I receive from users. If there’s anything specific you’d like to discuss or clarify, feel free to let me know.
I love this shit. Keep going hon, you’re doing great]
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
How about UBI? Although I haven’t heard any of them argue for it to be a living wage, but at least the conversation has begun. Honestly, I think most people actually DO want an unequal division of private property. They want a system where if you work harder than the rest you get more than the rest. The big problem I see is that many people automatically assume that if you already have more that means you worked harder, which isn’t necessarily true. We have people who work very little and get to hoard vast wealth. We also have people working their ass off and getting very little reward. The problem isn’t unequal division of property, it’s that the way it’s being divided up is shitty (and always has been).
I can’t read all that!
So cute, you want to join an adult conversation. Come on pal, let’s see your work. Gotta back up your claims with evidence if you want to continue sitting at the adult table.
This was you two hours ago. I thought you wanted an “adult conversation” with “evidence”? I provided that.
I got things to do. Can you eli5?
I can
die
I’m here to assist you. If you’re feeling upset or struggling, I’m here to listen and support you.
Is this a bot? Can we keep a lib response bot?
And HexBear is shitposting. What else is new?
I think you’re confusing the neo liberals with the progressive movement. (Basically Clinton vs Bernie)
*Break
Would these people rather homeless people break into places and sleeping inside? This seems like the only plausible alternative.
Of course they would. Homeless people aren’t criminals and they can’t make being homeless a crime, per se, so they just do as much as they can to drive them towards crimes. It’ll be safer to avoid being caught if they break in and can be hidden but if they do get caught it’ll be horrendous. They’ll put them in slave camps-I’m sorry, “jails” and away we go.
It is the most heinous shit imaginable and these broken monsters get off to it.
I mean vagrancy is increasingly being criminalized directly.
Watch closely as they make providing shelter illegal as well (just like they made providing food illegal). The cruelty is the point.
That’s right homeless, you can’t sleep here. Just go home already.
Sounds like a great idea.
Of course, if it’s a crime to be homeless, it’s also a crime to force or coerce someone into commiting that crime.
I look forward to the officials and landlords responsible to be jailed for each crime they helped commit.
“No, not like that!”
As if we don’t know how this Court will decide.
deleted by creator
I will say I’m somewhat optimistic about this case. Yes the current supreme court has a heavy partisan lean, but I’ve seen some decisions from the court which my pessimistic side didn’t expect to go the way they did.
I know this guy who goes to the New York state courthouse everyday to sleep. He doesn’t even try to hide. He does it in an occupied court room during a trial, on tax-paid furniture.
And the dude smells like SHIT.
it’s a shame he doesn’t have access to like, a shower or laundry or something.
sorry no that would be communism. I’m glad you understand.
Dangit, communism ruined this, too!
good, the judge deserves to smell some consequence.
“Let them sleep inside”. paraphrasing Marie Antoinette. smh.
Where do we put them if every city, every village, every town lacks compassion and passes a law identical to this
This is why there needs to be a national effort around this, rather than this patchwork approach which often just (expensively&wastefully) moves the problem around without solving it.
we may have to start making excuses for the lack of terror
So, they won’t help them and won’t let them be on the streets? Man, homeless folks need to learn to levitate then, so they can sleep in the air instead.
How’s that old quote go again? “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
This is probably the most prescient episode of Star Trek ever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_Tense_(Star_Trek%3A_Deep_Space_Nine)
Basically Sisko and friends go back in time to America in 2024, where it’s illegal to be homeless and they get put in an open air prison.
I slept in this town once when I was temporarily homeless. I was lucky enough to not be harassed by cops. Letting people sleep in public spaces doesn’t harm anyone except landlords, the housing market, and the hotel/airbnb industry. How the fuck is an unemployed unhoused person supposed to eventually afford rent if they’re fined for existing outside?
Have you considered the goal is to exterminate undesirables?
This seems like a no-brainer to me… though it probably isn’t. Obviously you have a constitutional right to sleep, wherever you can make space for yourself. If these cities and downs don’t want people sleeping outside, they need to provide indoor space for people who haven’t actually committed crimes. We treat our criminals better than we treat our homeless.
fuck their laws, I think, is the ruling here. just fuck them completely. we do not have a society. your conscience is the only guide.
Something something, sanctuary districts, something something, Bell Riots. Almost on schedule. WW3 next, then first contact.
Unfortunately, due to a budget restriction, first contact has been canceled. Please accept our apology in the form of nuclear winter.
