this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
551 points (93.5% liked)

Memes

50212 readers
907 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 106 points 2 years ago (8 children)

You know their answer will be that the homeless just need to work harder.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 81 points 2 years ago (2 children)

And "stop doing drugs" as if homeless people are the only drug users and the rich never use them.

[–] DaCookeyMonsta@lemmy.world 42 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I've started getting angry when people declare that they refuse to give money to people begging because they'll just use it on drugs. More because of how frequently it comes up.

They aren't obliged to help anyone but just assuming every homeless person is a drug addict is so condescending.

And even if they were they are still a person and the money they beg for will is some part contribute to feeding them. You can't subsist off of drugs.

I see the same people burn money on the dumbest shit but act like giving money to homeless people is a sin against God.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 36 points 2 years ago (4 children)

If a homeless person is going to use that money for drugs or alcohol, good. I would too if I was homeless and needed to forget it for a little while.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

The only reason not to give food, clothing, or cash is because I’m already late for work or I have nothing to spare right now. I try to find something even if it’s just a smoke or something.

[–] Zink@programming.dev -1 points 2 years ago

Assuming those other people are all bad or at the very least less than the good people?

Using that as a reason to not help people? And love sharing it?

Using the same money on dumb wasteful shit for yourself?

I think the people you’re running into are just run of the mill conservatives.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Are you posting these links in reply to me because you think I am suggesting the homeless need to work harder?

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No just resources, if you had that conversation with a coworker.

[–] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Thanks, sorry for the misinterpretation!

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago
[–] motor_spirit@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Luckily they unionized..

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 37 points 2 years ago (4 children)

"Libertarian" always seems like a misnomer. Libertarians only want people like themselves to experience liberty. They aim to do nothing to address inequities like social and systemic discrimination against LGBT+ people, BIPOC, women, and others. They aim to do nothing to address poverty. It's social darwinism at its ugliest. This is why they are practically indistinguishable from conservatives here in the US -- the way they arrive may look different, but the outcomes are the same. At best, they are wearing blinders. At worst, they actively support the power structures and systems that result in things like poverty and abuse.

People who legitimately do seek liberty should instead be looking to things like anarchism, which is interested in addressing the root causes of all of these problems, such as hierarchies and the state.

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 29 points 2 years ago (2 children)

"Libertarian" used to be a synonym for left-wing anarchism until Murray Rothbard purposefully co-opted the term and even bragged about it.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago

Yep it's just a propaganda campaign.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Fellow left-wing anarchists: should we just give up on trying to reclaim this word? What do you call yourself among people who don't know the context?

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago

In Europe it's way more ambiguous. Also: you can simply specify "left-wing", or "right-wing" libertarian.

I usually just say "anarchist", though ;)

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago

People who legitimately do seek liberty should instead be looking to things like anarchism

Interestingly, 'libertarian' was originally a euphemism for 'anarchist', until it was co-opted by the right

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You can't fully experience liberty unless everyone is free

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There is equality and there is equity. Libertarians are for equality even if it creates non-equity.

Let me give an abstract example so that it is not politically charged. Suppose that there are green-skinned people in our society that for some historical reason value writing poetry above all else. And they are trying to earn their living by writing poetry and sometimes having second part time usually low paid job to support themselves.

Libertarian would say that these green people has absolute right to do so, and face consequences of their choice. This is liberty.
People who advocate equality would say - no, there is systemic green-ism that leads to green people being consistently underpaid, having less percent of them in high level jobs like CEO, and so on. They then propose all sorts of laws that will treat green people differently so that the average salary, average number of CEOs per 100,000 population and other similar metrics associated with “success” are the same for green people. This kind of differential treatment of green people is absolutely against to liberty minded people, that includes libertarians, that think that the laws should be the same to all people, regardless of their skin color, genetics and so on.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Interesting that the systemic discrimination in your case is due to a conscious choice and not systemic discrimination.

You describe the origins of “starving artist” and not “oppressed race” IMO.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 4 points 2 years ago

I assumed he was loosely referring to religion. "Go forth and multiply" [regardless of available support] is a huge source of suffering in the world.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I've had this conversation, he thought everything would be fine if we eliminated zoning laws.

[–] Adori@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hell yeah, now Industry can have its workers live next to them, no more commutes! They'll be so healthy :) /s

[–] ignotum@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Seriously though, being able to work somewhere that's within walking distance, so it's possible to have a job without also needing a car or spending hours taking the bus, is a great advantage for the person as well

[–] jcg@halubilo.social 5 points 2 years ago

I agree which is why I think remote work is the way to go for jobs that it can work for.

However, I think that guy was talking about industry pollution messing up the environment around. But I think that's a separate issue entirely and needs to be handled by another set of laws.

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 7 points 2 years ago

I mean, wasn't the elimination (or extreme relaxation by American standards) of zoning laws one of the ways Tokyo has been able to afford to house so many people at such affordable rates?

Not saying we need kindergartens between the sewage recycling plant and the land fill, but being able to build housing over shopping centers would be nice.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Their actual answer is volunteer donations.

[–] interolivary@beehaw.org 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

And considering how many libertarians think that poverty is essentially due to personal choice, we can all imagine how many of them are willing to voluntarily donate money to helping the poor.

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago

We just need more Billionaires and they will solve the problem since they ara morally superior and know whats best!!! /s

[–] MxM111@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That may be, but they think that it is greater evil to forcefully take money from somebody else (through obligatory taxes) and spend on homeless than letting homeless be homeless.

[–] norbert@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago

They're wrong.

[–] interolivary@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago

Oh yeah, I know that's what they think, it's just a bit silly that they advocate for charity to solve homelessness while at the same time they more or less want the homeless to literally die

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago

Easy: Let them starve and the invisible hand will take care of their bodies

[–] Tammo-Korsai@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago

Something, something, invisible hand of the free market and Social Darwinism. Dead people can't be in poverty, right? Problem solved!

I like this meme, and praise Dale raise hell, but I really like Jeff Gordon :/

[–] knorke3@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

if there's enough people who can't afford a home, there will suddenly be a lot more homes on the housing market - thought that one was obvious... /s

[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Raise Hell, Praise Dale!

[–] karakoram@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago
load more comments
view more: next ›