Current Events > Anti-homeless people* measures may be the single greatest civic failing of usa

(+) Yeah! (+)

*i forget the actual word used to describe things designed to make life harder for the homeless

Excessive armrests on benches, parks with gates, anti-homeless spikes, and police harassment, among countless other horrendous structures and practices. What a hellish shithole of a country.


---

We should be helping these people, not wasting tax dollars making our cities more dangerous to them.

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture

This?

---

Well they're needed.

Anti-vagrancy may be the term youre looking for.

The homeless have had it too good for too long

Literally anti human. They're a human rights violation.


---

It seems cruel and almost like the cities are kicking those that are already at the bottom.
Wouldn't want the poor people clogging up nice areas the rich folk use.

---

Tactical_Spork posted...

We should be helping these people, not wasting tax dollars making our cities more dangerous to them.

Invite them all to stay at your home then if you really want to enforce your own moral code. Not sure why you're waiting on us for.

---

AtelierRyza2462 posted...

Well they're needed.

Why

---

Vicious_Dios posted...

Invite them all to stay at your home then if you really want to enforce your own moral code. Not sure why you're waiting on us for.

---

Vicious_Dios posted...

Invite them all to stay at your home then if you really want to enforce your own moral code. Not sure why you're waiting on us for.

You are wrong about literally everything you post about

---

Vicious_Dios posted...

Invite them all to stay at your home then if you really want to enforce your own moral code. Not sure why you're waiting on us for.

Whether you're trolling or not, it's disgusting how you take the most pro-discrimination view on every single issue. You're very lucky you aren't treated the way you seem to want to treat others.

---

What kills me is how much money they spend on it when instead they can just put it into renting an abandoned warehouse and buying like 50 cots or something and making an effort to give them somewhere to go instead of trying to thwart their efforts to do basic human things like sleep. It's probably not the best example but you get the point. They invest on making life harder for them instead of attempting to find some kind of humane solution. They are people, not vermin.

---

I'm glad you explained. I assumed an anti-homeless person was the antimatter counterpart of a homeless person until you clarified.

---

Tactical_Spork posted...

You are wrong about literally everything you post about

Is that a no to my suggestion? Huh, didn't think so. ('-' )

legendary_zell posted...

Whether you're trolling or not, it's disgusting how you take the most pro-discrimination view on every single issue. You're very lucky you aren't treated the way you seem to want to treat others.

I treat others just fine, thank you very much. I have my own priorities to focus on, like providing for my family, and ensuring their well-being. Other strangers are not my immediate concern.

Just being honest.


---

Vicious_Dios posted...

Invite them all to stay at your home then if you really want to enforce your own moral code. Not sure why you're waiting on us for.

No. Structural assistance is needed on a national level. Telling advocates to take people into their own homes only shows how out of touch with reality you are.

Vicious_Dios posted...

Is that a no to my suggestion? Huh, didn't think so. ('-' )

I treat others just fine, thank you very much. I have my own priorities to focus on, like providing for my family, and ensuring their well-being. Other strangers are not my immediate concern.

Just being honest.

This is known as the "fuck you jack, I'm alright" attitude.
People with this attitude should always remember,
"there but for the grace of God...."

---

It's easy to sprout moral dribble like this when you dont live near or deal with them on a regular basis. Theres a limit to how much caring most people can give until they've eventually have had enough.

That and just throwing more and more of money at the problem has failed utterly. And just makes life harder for residents who have to front the bill for it all.

---

I'm not sure homeless people want people's help here. And for good reason. It's questionable who is on the lower end of the spectrum. And honestly not really. Human rights violations are also human rights violations.

Prismsblade posted...

It's easy to sprout moral dribble like this when you dont live near or deal with them on a regular basis. Theres a limit to how much caring most people can give until they've eventually have had enough.

That and just throwing more and more of money at the problem has failed utterly. And just makes life harder for residents who have to front the bill for it all.

Good thing I do fucking live near them. Shut the fuck up.

---

Protect the homeless from the creeps that made them that way in the first place. People who are legit are legit.

Tactical_Spork posted...

Good thing I do fucking live near them. Shut the fuck up.

Not everyone shares your opinion and moral compass obviously so right back at you.

---

Tactical_Spork posted...

You are wrong about literally everything you post about

Well he's right this time. Unless you're part of the solution you don't have any right to judge people who utilize or are complacent with "aggressive architecture". Realistically we all do it and we all engage in "anti homeless" measures: we all have locks on our doors and windows, and every facing one of us would tell them to move on or call the cops if one was just hanging around our house.

---

PoundGarden posted...

Well he's right this time.

No he isn't.

TheOtherMike posted...

No he isn't.

Unless you'd let a homeless dude just hang out on your property, yeah, he is.

---

PoundGarden posted...

Unless you'd let a homeless dude just hang out on your property, yeah, he is.

TheOtherMike posted...

No. Structural assistance is needed on a national level. Telling advocates to take people into their own homes only shows how out of touch with reality you are.

He objectively is not.

how about the fact of so much homelessness in the first place?

---

If you let a homeless person live in your house, then he or she is no longer homeless but you still have homeless people. If we enact collective measures to ensure that homeless people have homes, then they are all no longer homeless. Pretty easy to understand I think.

---

Prismsblade posted...

It's easy to sprout moral dribble like this when you dont live near or deal with them on a regular basis. Theres a limit to how much caring most people can give until they've eventually have had enough.

That and just throwing more and more of money at the problem has failed utterly. And just makes life harder for residents who have to front the bill for it all.

The best case scenario for hostile architecture is that the homeless people move to another city. That's just moving the problem. But they'll also sleep in alleys, dirt floors, under bridges, et cetera.
The solution isn't "make it harder for them to sleep", the solution is to get them off drugs and off the street.

There's enough empty homes to house everyone. Having the houses to do so isn't the issue (though we need to be building much more).

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

If you let a homeless person live in your house, then he or she is no longer homeless

also, this is not even true. it is a category of homelessness

---

MabusIncarnate posted...

What kills me is how much money they spend on it when instead they can just put it into renting an abandoned warehouse and buying like 50 cots or something and making an effort to give them somewhere to go instead of trying to thwart their efforts to do basic human things like sleep. It's probably not the best example but you get the point. They invest on making life harder for them instead of attempting to find some kind of humane solution. They are people, not vermin.

Fill a warehouse with homeless people and youd have to hire staff to keep them from killing eachother or themselves at all times. Homeless shelters exist and even though my area gets deathly frigid, most homeless would rather be on the streets because they dont want to get beat up and robbed.

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

If we enact collective measures to ensure that homeless people have homes, then they are all no longer homeless. Pretty easy to understand I think

Coupled with solving the route cause of homelessness. Job losses, foreclosures, addictions etc. It's a lot more complex than invite one to your house..

---

Hedge Fund billionaires will now learn what it's like to be homeless.

---

Chicken posted...

Fill a warehouse with homeless people and youd have to hire staff to keep them from killing eachother or themselves at all times. Homeless shelters exist and even though my area gets deathly frigid, most homeless would rather be on the streets because they dont want to get beat up and robbed.

that's almost certainly not true, as homeless shelters regularly reach capacity during winter months, implying there is greater demand for shelter space than supply


---

DravenRainrix posted...

Coupled with solving the route cause of homelessness. Job losses, foreclosures, addictions etc. It's a lot more complex than invite one to your house..

Also, some homeless people just want to be homeless. Some also suffer mental illness and you cant force them to live somewhere. I remember this guy was on a list for a free apartment for 6 months. They couldnt find him. We finally found him and hes like nah, I like living outside the wire man. How many resources wasted for this guy.

its a lot bigger issue than just having a home

---

Vicious_Dios posted...

Invite them all to stay at your home then if you really want to enforce your own moral code. Not sure why you're waiting on us for.

how big do you think my home is?

---

TheOtherMike posted...

He objectively is not.

Dude, nobody is saying reform and funding isn't needed or even the bet approach. However since that's jut not going to happen, I don't think its fair to judge businesses and building that utilize these tools. Nobody wants homeless hanging around their place. Again, we all have locks on our doors. Many of us even have *gasp* literal fences around our homes!

---

DravenRainrix posted...

Coupled with solving the route cause of homelessness. Job losses, foreclosures, addictions etc. It's a lot more complex than invite one to your house..

I didn't say "we should invite one to our house, that is the most good and best idea ever and will solve the problem".

---

PoundGarden posted...

Dude, nobody is saying reform and funding isn't needed or even the bet approach. However since that's jut not going to happen, I don't think its fair to judge businesses and building that utilize these tools. Nobody wants homeless hanging around their place. Again, we all have locks on our doors. Many of us even have *gasp* literal fences around our homes!

What does this have to do with VD being wrong about telling people to invite all the homeless people into their homes?

ChocoboMogALT posted...

The best case scenario for hostile architecture is that the homeless people move to another city. That's just moving the problem. But they'll also sleep in alleys, dirt floors, under bridges, et cetera.
The solution isn't "make it harder for them to sleep", the solution is to get them off drugs and off the street.

There's enough empty homes to house everyone. Having the houses to do so isn't the issue (though we need to be building much more).

Moving certanly is a solution with we're talking about the most expansive citys in the country. And if someone wants to argue for housing them, but NOT relocating them then the discussions are over before they've even begun.

Everyone wants to live in those citys and trying to house thousands of homeless in or anywhere near them is neither viable nor fair to the average citizens who either want to, or are paying a arm or a leg to do so.

---

What's a anti human rights argument for wanting to avoid loitering and littering among other aspects of homelessness?

One day all of us will be homeless
---

Prismsblade posted...

Moving certanly is a solution with we're talking about the most expansive citys in the country. And if someone wants to argue for housing them, but NOT relocating them then the discussions are over before they've even begun.

Everyone wants to live in those citys and trying to house thousands of homeless in or anywhere near them is neither viable nor fair to the average citizens who either want to, or are paying a arm or a leg to do so.

then maybe housing should be a public service rather than a for-profit enterprise

---

averagejoel posted...

then maybe housing should be a public service rather than a for-profit enterprise

Wow! What a great suggestion, but, as usual and not surprising... no solution.

Womp

---

While we can definitely do a much better job providing assistance to the homeless, there will always be a chunk that can truly not be helped, whether due to mental illness, substance abuse, violence, or whatever else. Unless you want to forcibly round them up and force them into institutions, they'll sadly always exist.