The whole idea of it being criminal is absurd. If I was to give someone a gift, what the fuck does it matter where they do or do not live? What are Republicans going to do, ban Christmas now or something too? lol, is this is the real war on Christmas they're always complaining about? :P
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
103 points (98.1% liked)
News
1751 readers
1 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
I could maybe see some versions of this that make sense. In my home city, for example, it's illegal to panhandle from cars along the curbside, and there's practical reasons for that. There were intersections that used to have homeless people claiming "turf" on busy corners where cars had to stop at red lights and it was dangerous for everyone involved.
This being Texas, though, I'm sure practical reasons are only there as an excuse for the cruelty.
I get you, but even that could fall under loitering or traffic laws though. No need for a specific law against homelessness
The law this article is about isn't explicitly "against homelessness" either, though. It's similar to the one I described - prohibiting certain acts in certain places. Presumably if I had a home but I went and took some food from that guy I'd still trigger it.
It was an absurdly anti-Christian law and the hypocrites in Texas put it in.
Their rationale was that it was like feeding animals and it would encourage more of them.
Rare Texas W.
Not only does the state increasingly criminalize being un-housed, they are increasingly using their power to harass people who have any empathy and try to make a positive impact on the world for no profit motive. There is big money in helping "the homeless" as long as you don't actually do anything. All facets of government in the U.S. has become a system of graft and corruption. Mr. Smith wouldn't even get the chance to go to Washington because the DNC is just as complicit as the GOP.
"just as complicit".
No.
Yes. Refusing to actively fight is the same as being complicit.
But is it “just as complicit”?
Doing a bad deed has got to be worse than knowing someone was doing the deed and not doing anything about it.
Which isn't even the case. One party is kicking puppies while standing in full support and solidarity of each other's big, heavy boots. The other party says we shouldn't kick puppies, but isn't able to muster enough collective support and organization to actually make it stop.
And this guy is saying the ones against puppy-kicking are just as complicit as the puppy kickers in kicking puppies simply because they have failed to stop the puppy kicking, with the implication that we shouldn't support either "side". The real result of following advice like this is that puppies never stop getting kicked.
The intent of bothsidesing is almost always to stealthily support disenfranchisement. It serves the objectives of the right.
Criticize the reps for what they do wrong. Vote in primaries. Write your elected officials. Demand better. Don't create these false equivalences that only make it easier for the GOP to continue a regressive, anti-civil rights campaign to make the world worse.
Nice to hear about something good