rule : 196

[–] [email protected] 67 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I am the owner of multiple colors of hard hats and hi-vis vests. You're going to want to get an orange/yellow bucket. These are the ones that crew wear. I.e. the people that don't know what's actually happening, they're just "doing their job". Don't get white or any other color because those mean you know what's happening and shouldn't be working.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 9 months ago (1 children)

TIL there are colour-coded helmets on worksites. Makes sense, I suppose. If you need a first aider or something it's probably easier to look for a particular colour helmet than just Jim.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

A lot of the time you don't even know Jim, never met him. So wearing the hat for what your job is let's people know who to ask for what without everyone needing to know each other.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't know everyone on my job sites wear white wide rimmed helmets and the crew owners typically wear the grey carbon fiber helmets, but then again we're mostly electricians.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Small crews can use whatever they prefer. If you get on a big job with 1000+ people then color code really helps.

[+] [email protected] 36 points 9 months ago (4 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 70 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Enabling the homeless to sleep in public spaces like park benches and in front of businesses doesn’t make them safer. It creates more conflict for them, leaves them exposed (to people and the elements), and worsens how the community sees them.

And taking away the littlest comfort of not having to sleep on the cold floor next to the bench solves this how?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't, providing spaces for them and working on improving access to help does.

How is letting them sleep on benches helping them?

[–] Gabu 31 points 9 months ago (2 children)

A little thought experiment, since you're having trouble following what should be a self evident line: would you rather sleep in your bed or on the floor, if you were forced to choose? Now if I swap your bed with a bench?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Obviously a bench is better than the ground, but what I'm saying is a system that gives you some form of shelter is better than both. Even if that's a tent and a space heater, or a room in a shelter (which I know can be problematic in their own way).

[–] Gabu 35 points 9 months ago

Thankfully, people are capable of doing more than one thing at a time. Removing hostile architecture doesn't stop you from campaigning for better policies nor from organizing a leftwing bloc.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That is not the system that exists. The system that exists tries to rob you of your last bit of dignity by denying you even this little bit of comfort. So, staying in the system that actually exists in reality, are you still against removing those bars?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

I'm not in favor of adding the bars in the first place, but just removing the bars individually is setting some homeless person up for trouble. I've seen cops hassle guys for collecting cans, when they sleep on the bench that used to have a bar those cops are going to take it on the homeless.

I'm saying advocate to change the system. Advocate to remove the bars, advocate for better shelters for the homeless than a bench.

[–] Telodzrum 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You’re providing a false dichotomy. Those aren’t the options available.

[–] Gabu -5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm not providing a false dichotomy because no dichotomy exists, my illiterate friend.

[–] btr_fan87 0 points 9 months ago

Supporting systems that provide shelter is good. Removing the middle bar is also good. You don't have to choose one or the other. You can do both. There is no dichotomy. Your previous comment dismissed removing the bars because there's other, better things you could do. That's a false dichotomy because you aren't limited to one or the other. You're an asshole for resorting to ad hominem and a dumbass for failing to understand their argument.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The only effective thing to do is get parties voted that enable general social safety. In countries where people don't starve when they don't have a job criminality is much lower.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

The American public generally supports the kinds of policies we see in "good socialist" countries like the Netherlands, but our voting and representation system has locked in a right and far-right party. We're going to have to get Approval Voting and Proportional Representation installed via referendum if we want the elected officials to actually represent the will of the people.

[+] FinishingDutch 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

I agree, there’s a balance. I don’t think criminalizing homelessness is a good policy, but I also don’t like situations I’ve seen where homeless people take over parks, block sidewalks, or turn a whole street into a ghetto hellhole with burnt out abandoned RVs and trash. I understand these people are in dire straits but it’s not fair to deny everyone else use of public spaces like parks. A group of 20-25 people basically occupied a park near where I live in Denver for two weeks until the city finally kicked them out - ringed it with RVs, broken down cars, trash and debris, people sleeping on picnic tables, noise and commotion at night, open drug and alcohol use. Another thing is that wouldn't have been tolerated in the higher income areas of the city for even one day, and it is blatantly against park usage laws. I also know people who had situations like a group of random transients came and built a tent shanty directly behind their house in the alley, blocking their gate and parking area, doing a bunch of shady shit with bikes and making noise all night, and the city/police response was “well you should talk to them and ask them to leave”.

It’s amazing to me that the US is at the point where we have shanty towns taking over public areas. Unfortunately, our current solutions are an awful in-between where cities tolerate encampments for a while, then do a “sweep” where they clean the area off, kick everyone out and throw away possessions if people don’t remove them first. Then the people who had been living there just go to a different area of the city and nothing is every really solved.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Yes, I don't want to not help the homeless, helping them resolves most of the issues with them.

But I don't like having run ins with them anymore. I don't like going to parks where they hangout, I don't like having to step over them on the sidewalk, and I'm very happy I no longer work downtown where I was accosted by them regularly. I assume if they had a safer place to they would mostly choose to be there, which is why I try to donate money.

Those types of programs are a minimum bar to do so that we can all have nice things and spaces.

[–] FinishingDutch 1 points 9 months ago

Jesus, the mods here are silly...

[–] Mr_Blott 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Notice this guy worked in that field and still refers to them as homeless?

Calling them "uNhOuSEd" is important only in the minds of those who want to try to seem morally superior. See also - LatinX

Homeless people couldn't give a single fuck about how someone refers to them

Source - was uNhOuSEd once

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure if you're referring to me or OP in your comment, but I have never worked with the homeless, I just worked at a place a block over from a shelter.

They sound exactly the same to me, except "unhoused" sounds like a PR term trying to clean up the word homeless, but they both bring up exactly the same images to me.

[–] Mr_Blott 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah I wasn't referring to you, but I misread your comment and thought you worked with them

The sentiment is unchanged though

[–] Gabu 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The bar is obviously to use as a blunt weapon in the first step of preparing a rich meal.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

A CEO runs into a bar...

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Just remember that if anyone asks, act irritated that you were called in on your day off because the guy who was supposed to do it fell sick, then catch yourself and say "anyway, no time to chat, I got a quota to meet" before grumbling about how you should have listened to your mother.

This is absolute gold.

[–] Potatos_are_not_friends 1 points 9 months ago

One of my first jobs -- My wife said I would call her and go on mumble rants for about 10 minutes, and she's talk me down from quitting because we needed the money. It was all a blur, but I remember doing those calls while getting coffee or a sandwich, and always remembering that my orders always came out 100% perfect and really fast.

I was probably annoying AF and workers just wanted to get away from me.

[–] BigPurpleCrab 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

People are just crazy these days

[–] [email protected] 69 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

Yes, it is indeed crazy to try and make life even more shitty for unhoused people.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

alt text below
alt text: Picture of a firefighter fighting a forest fire. In the lower right corner is the logo of the company "Shell", subtitled with "Hell" instead. In the middle there's a text: "At least billionaires are getting richer", but the word "billionaires" is replaced with "landlords".

[–] Mr_Blott 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

uNhOuSEd

The word is "homeless"

[–] [email protected] -5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

no

[–] Mr_Blott 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes it fuckin is, you donkey

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 months ago

Have fun arguing semantics I guess? 🤷

[–] Son_of_dad -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't understand why people on Lemmy think that allowing the subway system and city parks to be turned into homeless shanty towns is an attractive solution

[–] LemmyKnowsBest 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's more of a protest against the government/ socioeconomic system that causes people to be homeless in the first place.