this post was submitted on 10 May 2025
1093 points (97.0% liked)

Lemmy Be Wholesome

8699 readers
119 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Be Wholesome. This is the polar opposite of LemmeShitpost. Here you can post wholesome memes, palate cleanser and good vibes.

The home to heal your soul. No bleak-posting!

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/ExplicitContent


-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. No NSFW Content


-Content shouldn't be NSFW

-Refrain from posting triggering content, if the content might be triggering try putting it behind NSFW tags.


7. Content should be Wholesome, we accept cute cats, kittens, puppies, dogs and anything, everything that restores your faith in humanity!


Content that isn't wholesome will be removed.

...


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:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Mildly Infuriating

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Jokes

7.Credible Defense

...

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

When Trudeau's housing accelerator fund gave a wad of cash to Burnaby they increased developer fees by 50k. I dont know where this guy lives but people dont want to live out in the middle of no where with no job.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] x4740N@lemm.ee -2 points 6 days ago (3 children)

If it's tiny houses that are barely liveable it's just barely better than nothing

Should've built some low rise apartments to maximise the space and allow for bigger liveability space

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thefrozenorth@sh.itjust.works -3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This is a terrible idea. We are not helpless children, it's our society, we have the right to provide the necessities of life: food, health care, a place to live and a decent job. Capitalism is the sickness: get healthy, go woke.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip -2 points 6 days ago

I dont want to take away the feel good juice but the lack of housing isnt what causes homelessness...

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 176 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (20 children)

Millionaire? Nice. Billionaires should follow suit, but 1000x

(With ~800 billionaires in the US, that's 79,200,000 homes)

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 114 points 1 week ago (18 children)

I see no reason to believe that letting this guy make unilateral decisions is somehow better than taxing him appropriately and using the revenue to build public housing.

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

This is obviously way better, come on. Why involve middle men in something like this? Add more layers and it becomes less efficient. Less of the money goes to helping people and it gets spread around to different agencies, or even worse goes to government contractors who can charge ridiculous rates because they know someone and didn't have to compete for the contract. I worked at a place once where we got a couple hundred thousand dollars for a useless study because if the money didn't get used it would make their budget smaller for next year. That kind of thing happens all the time.

[–] Sc00ter@lemm.ee 103 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Did anyone say that it was better this way? He could just go buy another yatch instead.

Dont let perfection be the enemy of better

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world -4 points 6 days ago (6 children)

Man, Im starting to think I'm tarded. Something about this isn't letting my brain work, please do more sentences

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This statement might be true, but we're not taxing him. Should he just donate his money to the government?

[–] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I don't even think you can do that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Sergio@slrpnk.net 59 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Good for him, but this is pretty much an Orphan-Crushing Machine moment.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Alk@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

Source? Did it actually work? Very cool if so.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 81 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If you give a homeless person a home, then by definition, they are no longer homeless.

On a less pedantic note, yes, it should. Some countries (like mine) provide a secure place to live as step one, when helping the homeless. Having somewhere safe to sleep, keep your property, etc. makes all the other steps involved in solving your problems much easier, leading to a better success rate in getting people back on their feet.

[–] Taiatari@lemmynsfw.com 37 points 1 week ago

Further it enables them to apply for all manners of documents as they have an address to their name. Try getting any sort of document from a bank or governmental branch without an address. Trying to get a passport without address? Nope. No address no ID, no Bank account and mostly no employment anywhere without either of the two.

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago

Here's one article about it.

https://macleans.ca/society/tiny-homes-fredericton/

I don't remember where I saw this the first time, but it did mention that this had become a thing in a few American cities too (this story was from Fredericton, Canada)

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I'm of two minds.

  • shitty bungalows are what is killing infrastructure costs and perpetuating urban sprawl. We have a generous home in a hyper-dense housing area and - thanks to triple paned windows and concrete - no claustrophobia.

  • tiny homes for people returning from homelessness may be a good idea. The unfair concerns are mitigated by very repairable units separated from neighbours.

We need to keep these as transitional housing, though, and a feeder into a "starter" unit in proper dense mixed-use: every block (hectare) taken for tiny homes is 3 million cubic meters of space taken from a land budget we're already overdrawn on.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›