this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
1261 points (98.4% liked)
Enough Musk Spam
2330 readers
1070 users here now
For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.
No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.
Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.
Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.
Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Even if that is true, does it somehow invalidate the fact that they are also homeless?! Are they less deserving to be out of the elements because they have an addiction?
That's what I find so disgusting about this statement. It's just an excuse and doesn't address anything at all.
Using his own "argument", it would seem to me that a path to less addiction and violence would involve having a place to live and sleep.
That's not what's being said. He is criticizing the fact that so many people assume that 'just give them a place to live' is the solution, when it's much, much more complicated than that. In that way, "homeless" is very reductive, and masks those other issues, in favor of making it look like it's a simple problem with a simple solution.
Very few long-term homeless people are homeless simply because they can't afford a place to live.
So we shouldn't house them unless and until we figure out all of the complex issues? They're not going to benefit any at all, or have any possibility of getting on their feet, until we have a perfect solution?
That's what's being said there: homelessness is not something we should do anything about, because of reasons. So let's do nothing.
That's a fucking cop out.
No, Cathy, that's not what was said.
The fact of the matter is that we know what happens when we provide shelter without anything else. It doesn't last and you're right back where you started before you know it. After all, it's that stuff that is the reason they became homeless in the first place.
If you don't address the other stuff, 'just give them a house lol' literally doesn't work long-term. That's the reality.
Actually it is pretty darn successful when enough housing is provided.
Housing is the first step to being able to address those issues. Yes, the issues need to be addressed for long term success, but trying to address the issues while they are homeless is not successful. Too much emphasis is put on requiring the treatment as conditional for the housing.
I think you've misunderstood my position, based specifically on something I'll quote later in this comment.
Somewhat ironic that the juxtaposition in the article is between an area of California and Texas, with the latter arguably taking the more progressive approach.
For the record, I never believed in or advocated for this approach. I pushed back against specifically the implication that you can just throw these people into some sort of housing and now you can consider the problem "solved" and wipe your hands of it.
I definitely agree that the path to a long-term solution is taking that multi-faceted approach that tackles those root causes simultaneously. None of them should be conditional upon the others, and I believe that each one of them improving empowers the individual to be more capable of improving all the others. It's much more efficient than trying to 100% solve one thing, and ignoring everything else until that one thing is completely eradicated, not only on efficacy, but in resources required.
Nobody ever said that. They have said that it should not be a requirement to provide housing.
From the OP:
"It would cost $20 billion to end homelessness in America."
This $20 billion figure comes from an old estimate of what it'd cost to pay for homeless people's rent, and nothing more. And that person effectively said that paying for that, and nothing more, would "end homelessness."
So yes, somebody said that.
If they have a home are they still homeless?
Cathy?
I see that you're not interested in actual discourse and instead are just looking to be petty.
So I'll assume you're also not arguing in good faith either, so I'll just add some downvotes and move on.
You did a pretty good impression of her with the "so you're saying" followed by something not even close to what I was saying, so I called a spade a spade. If you don't like it, try arguing in good faith and honestly instead of strawmanning.
Projection.
Ah, the "NO U" gambit
One of us wrote an entire comment that contained nothing but a lie and personal attack, and it wasn't me.
Edit: Facts make y'all real mad, lol.
Now that's what I call projection!
You're the one who is literally calling them names.
Calling out strawmanning is literally not a personal attack, it's an attack on the dishonesty of the argument.
Comparing someone who is strawmanning to an actual person (read: not a generic pejorative like calling someone a "Karen", for example) who literally became infamous for blatantly and shamelessly strawmanning during a public interview, is also not a personal attack, especially when the basis of the comparison is something they literally just did, not something I've accused them of without evidence or something.
Who are you referring to? Because it definitely read like you were using a "generic perjorative term like calling someone a 'Karen'". Judging by the responses, I think this is how most people took it as well.
Even though there is no such term/trope/meme associated with the name "Cathy" at all? Pretty frustrating to see that people are so eager to just assume the worst possible motivation instead of just asking, if they didn't know what I was referencing. Or forbid, actually try to figure it out on their own.
Ironically, I would have been perfectly justified in straight-up calling them a jerk for strawmanning and obviously twisting my words, as it is in fact a shitty thing to do, especially so blatantly.
But since you actually asked me, even though I contend that it's quite easy, especially now with the additional context, to figure it out independently with a Google search, fine, I'll tell you: Cathy Newman.
Though Karen is the most popular example, people often use random names of white women in the same way. Examples include "Staci", "Brenda", etc.
News to me, I've never seen that a single time. Also makes no sense in context to think that's what I was doing, as what I replied to with that was nothing 'Karen-like' at all.
Well, yeah, that's why it pissed them off, probably.
Well, they made themselves mad over their own ignorant assumption, they have no one to blame but themselves for that, lol.
You still called them a name though.
If you were to provide housing only, nothing else, youd still pull out a significant portion of homeless people.
Of course, little to no one is advocating for housing only. These people often lack a solid support system and mental counseling.
Lastly, there will be a portion that cannot be fixed, that might remain broken but honestly? A lot of complete broken people have housing and the sole reason for them not being burned alive or bullied is that they have enough money to not sleep in the streets.