Enough Musk Spam

2269 readers

916 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

jordanpeterson

[email protected]

1230

"Homeless" is a lie (slrpnk.net)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/enoughmuskspam

168 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] spankmonkey 39 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.

Actually it is pretty darn successful when enough housing is provided.

Houston revamped its entire system to get more people into housing quickly, and it cut homelessness by more than half.

Housing First was a revolutionary idea when it was introduced in the 1990s because it didn’t require homeless people to fix their problems before getting permanent housing. Instead, its premise — since confirmed by years of research — was that people are better able to address their individual problems when basic needs, such as food and a place to live, are met.

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.

[+] damnedfurry -23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

Too much emphasis is put on requiring the treatment as conditional for the housing.

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.

[–] spankmonkey 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

Nobody ever said that. They have said that it should not be a requirement to provide housing.

[–] damnedfurry 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

Nobody ever said that.

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.

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If they have a home are they still homeless?