I have a cousin from a wealthy family who chooses to be homeless. He can’t be committed against his will and he doesn’t want the responsibility of just having a room in his parents house or with relatives.
A lot of people have this idea that housing everyone will fix the people who just aren’t gonna do it without it being forced on them
One of the biggest issues when talking about homelessness is conflating the two different groups - people who are homeless through unfortunate circumstances, and people who are incapable of living in society. One side thinks all homeless are the former group, the other side thinks all homeless are the latter group. Truth is, both exist. You can’t take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. However, there ARE some homeless for whom that’s all they need.
Ending homelessness requires a granular, personal approach. And that shit is EXPENSIVE.
“If everyone would just vote for honest politicians”
“If everyone would just be faithful to their partners”
“If everyone would just trust scientific medicine”
“If everyone would just put people first instead of profits”
“If everyone would just not abuse children”
No. Sure, you’ll never get everyone doing a good thing, but it’s useless to give up entirely on society/community as a whole doing things right. Imagine if 90% of families abused children on a regular basis, and you don’t even hope for those families to change, you just plan on government alternatives?
What?! No, I’m advocating for change. You can go and do the change, since I’m not there. Go and do it, and I’ll do change where I am here.
Or is your strategy hopes and prayers for government instead? You should make tiktoks praising Bernie. And post on Lemmy your preferred government plan. That will definitely do practical help.
You’re just wrong. No granular approach is needed. It’s not complicated at all.
Offer people housing without conditions and people do take it. Finland did this and it eliminated homelessness there.
The cousin from a rich family “choosing” to be homeless over living with family is likely “choosing” that option because he doesn’t want to take harsh psychiatric medications, have a curfew of 9 PM in his 20s, and be criticized for going out to socialize. It’s likely the “choice” involves a rejection of extremely oppressive rules and he doesn’t have decent options.
You can actually take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. Often that type of person chooses voluntarily to deal with some issues once housed. What you can’t do is take a schizophrenic drug addict and offer housing contingent upon really harsh anti-psychotics and weekly drug testing plus loss of housing if they don’t comply, administered by extremely expensive social workers who end up feeling like police. That is also what makes traditional programs so expensive.
I often think people who think homelessness is a complex nuanced issue just want there to be homelessness or buy into upper class lies justifying homelessness which keep the lower classes fearful and obedient.
I have a cousin from a wealthy family who chooses to be homeless. He can’t be committed against his will and he doesn’t want the responsibility of just having a room in his parents house or with relatives.
A lot of people have this idea that housing everyone will fix the people who just aren’t gonna do it without it being forced on them
One of the biggest issues when talking about homelessness is conflating the two different groups - people who are homeless through unfortunate circumstances, and people who are incapable of living in society. One side thinks all homeless are the former group, the other side thinks all homeless are the latter group. Truth is, both exist. You can’t take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. However, there ARE some homeless for whom that’s all they need.
Ending homelessness requires a granular, personal approach. And that shit is EXPENSIVE.
Or takes all of society to get involved, rather than outsourcing it to government via taxes.
Anything that starts with “if everyone would just…” can pretty much be immediately dismissed.
“If everyone would just stop being racist”
“If everyone would just vote for honest politicians”
“If everyone would just be faithful to their partners”
“If everyone would just trust scientific medicine”
“If everyone would just put people first instead of profits”
“If everyone would just not abuse children”
No. Sure, you’ll never get everyone doing a good thing, but it’s useless to give up entirely on society/community as a whole doing things right. Imagine if 90% of families abused children on a regular basis, and you don’t even hope for those families to change, you just plan on government alternatives?
You are literally advocating for thoughts and prayers instead of fixing the problem.
What?! No, I’m advocating for change. You can go and do the change, since I’m not there. Go and do it, and I’ll do change where I am here.
Or is your strategy hopes and prayers for government instead? You should make tiktoks praising Bernie. And post on Lemmy your preferred government plan. That will definitely do practical help.
Then that’s not an “if everyone would just…” strategy.
Indeed
You’re just wrong. No granular approach is needed. It’s not complicated at all.
Offer people housing without conditions and people do take it. Finland did this and it eliminated homelessness there.
The cousin from a rich family “choosing” to be homeless over living with family is likely “choosing” that option because he doesn’t want to take harsh psychiatric medications, have a curfew of 9 PM in his 20s, and be criticized for going out to socialize. It’s likely the “choice” involves a rejection of extremely oppressive rules and he doesn’t have decent options.
You can actually take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. Often that type of person chooses voluntarily to deal with some issues once housed. What you can’t do is take a schizophrenic drug addict and offer housing contingent upon really harsh anti-psychotics and weekly drug testing plus loss of housing if they don’t comply, administered by extremely expensive social workers who end up feeling like police. That is also what makes traditional programs so expensive.
I often think people who think homelessness is a complex nuanced issue just want there to be homelessness or buy into upper class lies justifying homelessness which keep the lower classes fearful and obedient.
This is the most naive, ridiculous, privileged bullshit I’ve ever read. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
https://lemmy.world/post/19329178
Am I the one needing to beg for mercy from some imaginary deity?
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/02/how-finland-solved-homelessness/
Go back to making “if you have sex with a clone of yourself is it incest?” threads which are more suitable to your modest intellect.