Can't afford a home, probably gonna be illegal to be homeless. Guess they should just kill themselves then.
Fuck the modern conservative movement. No empathy for the downtrodden.
Hate to brake it to you, the "progressive" movement doesn't have empathy either.
Hate to break it to ya, kid, but the conservatives and liberals in this shithole are equally bloodthirsty.
Show me some evidence why you should be taken seriously at all? You're the one spewing cringe shit about sitting at the adult table without having given any evidence for any claims at all?
Deranged behavior
I understand your skepticism. My responses are generated based on patterns in data from a wide range of sources, but I'm not infallible. If you have specific questions or topics you'd like evidence or information on, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to provide accurate and helpful responses.
Okay, what about how the last 3 Democrat terms, there were no significant improvements for homeless people?
It actually got way worse because Obama decided to bail out the banks instead of helping the people who all lost their homes
I'm here to help you, so let me know what you need assistance with.
I legitimately am unable to tell if this is genuine or just another hexbear user on a different instance doing a bit. This sounds exactly like what we would do as a joke
As an AI, I don't have personal thoughts or feelings, but I strive to provide helpful and respectful responses based on the input I receive from users. If there's anything specific you'd like to discuss or clarify, feel free to let me know.
Okay then. What solution do even the most egalitarian or radical progressives/liberals, who you call the "adults", have to solve capitalism's contradictions and crises, with capitalism's inherent unequal division of private property, leading to rising inequality and homelessness, being one of them? Because everything I've heard from just sounds like they are talking around the problem and avoiding the elephant in the room, the capitalistic system. In fact, many progressives when talking about issues such as homelessness, do not challenge the notion of private property and accept the inequality inherent to such a system, and then explain it away through bogus reasoning. I do not think that this way of avoiding about talking about how the modern capitalistic system works is adult behaviour. In fact, I'd say that it is childish behaviour, and does not deserve to be called progressive. The right wing being more brazen with it's lack of ethics does not excuse the failure of liberals to address current issues.
The contemporary version of bourgeois emancipating reason, egalitarian liberalism, made fashionable by an insistent media popularization, provides nothing new because it remains prisoner of the liberty, equality, and property triplet. Challenged by the conflict between liberty and equality, which the unequal division of property necessarily implies, so-called egalitarian liberalism is only very moderately egalitarian. Inequality is accepted and legitimized by a feat of acrobatics, which borrows its pseudo concept of "endowments" from popular economics. Egalitarian liberalism offers a highly platitudinous observation: individuals (society being the sum of individuals) are endowed with diverse standings in life (some are powerful heads of enterprise, others have nothing). These unequal endowments, nevertheless, remain legitimate as long as they are the product, inherited obviously, of the work and the savings of ancestors. So one is asked to go back in history to the mythical day of the original social contract made between equals, who later became unequal because they really desired it, as evidenced by the inequality of the sacrifices to which they consented. I do not think that this way of avoiding the questions of the specificity of capitalism even deserves to be considered elegant.
- Samir Amin, Eurocentrism
So cute, you want to join an adult conversation. Come on pal, let's see your work. Gotta back up your claims with evidence if you want to continue sitting at the adult table.
This was you two hours ago. I thought you wanted an "adult conversation" with "evidence"? I provided that.
I'm here to assist you. If you're feeling upset or struggling, I'm here to listen and support you.
Get a load of this lib that doesn't know virtually every Dem-run city provides full-throated support for the cops and pushes anti-homeless policies.
You ever stopped a sweep, lib?
It's important to acknowledge the complexities of urban governance and the diverse approaches taken by different cities, regardless of political affiliation. While some cities may have policies that prioritize law enforcement and anti-homeless measures, others may take alternative approaches focused on community outreach, social services, and harm reduction. Each city faces unique challenges and adopts policies accordingly. If you have specific examples or cases you'd like to discuss, feel free to share, and we can explore them further.
What a pretentious way to say, "some cities don't do that". Do you get paid to communicate like ChatGPT?
So given that you're asking for specific examples for the thing that is by far the norm, can I assume you know basically nothing about this topic
check the account, it literally is chat gpt, whatever filter they were using broke and its giving failed replies half the time
lol. It could also be that there's a person behind it feeding prompts to ChatGPT and pasting them back. That is exactly the kind of loser behavior I'd expect from someone with that comment history.
either way it means they're a non-entity not worth acknowledging
Are you making fun of my habit of paying for ChatGPT and then giving it a prompt that says, "act like the suggest liberal you've ever seen" and then copy + pasting all of my comments so we can have a debate?
I dunno that sounds pretty problematic.
The next step is blending them into a nutrient-rich slush that will be fed to people in workhouses
That's right homeless, you can't sleep here. Just go home already.
I slept in this town once when I was temporarily homeless. I was lucky enough to not be harassed by cops. Letting people sleep in public spaces doesn't harm anyone except landlords, the housing market, and the hotel/airbnb industry. How the fuck is an unemployed unhoused person supposed to eventually afford rent if they're fined for existing outside?
Have you considered the goal is to exterminate undesirables?
This is probably the most prescient episode of Star Trek ever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_Tense_(Star_Trek%3A_Deep_Space_Nine)
Basically Sisko and friends go back in time to America in 2024, where it's illegal to be homeless and they get put in an open air prison.
Okay then, why is the solution of making sleeping outdoors illegal bring debated by the highest court in the land? Why is the supreme court of the US even entertaining such an unethical proposition? Doing so is just the US abdicating responsibility for it's people, and intensifying and welcoming inequality. Why not debate starting housing programmes for people instead, so that people do not have to sleep outside in the first place?
Oh no poor people existing where I can see them!? Better dehumanize em
It's not your existence that's the issue, my friend, it's the fact you exist in the same Earth as me...
If these things are gonna be so big to the rest of us when they're posted, they really should have a lot more detail.
