I don’t think “progressives” have any issue with housing the homeless. The issue is where.
Go to a conservative (or indeed any) neighbourhood and tell them you’ll be building 200 apartments nearby to house rough sleepers, see how that goes down.
Most homeless are invisible to us anyway. They hold down jobs, they have gym memberships, they just sleep in their car, or on a mate’s sofa every so often. Nobody would have a problem with them moving in nearby.
It’s the aggressive beggars, addicts, and shitting in shop doorways (and these three are the same person) that nobody wants anywhere near them. These are who most people think of when they hear the word “homeless”. Most of them need more treatment than just a roof. We don’t have enough of that either.
I’ve no issue with my taxes helping all these people. I’m happy to pay tax to reduce the chances of me personally being robbed by somebody in desperate poverty.
I think fears about the homeless robbing you are massively overblown. I’ve been panhandled hundreds of times, and the worst response I’ve ever gotten is a dirty look.
I also think that the people shitting on public, etc. are more likely to be mentally ill than addicted (although they could be both). The reason is that Drugs Are Really Expensive. Also, I’m not aware of any addiction that causes you to shit in public, but it’s easy to find mental illnesses that would.
What causes the homeless to shit in public is that we barely have any public toilets. And the ones we do have are locked overnight, because we’re terrified that gays will have sex in them.
I have a house and a job and I’ve almost shit in public. I can totally see how it could happen if you didn’t have access to one or either of those two (because they have bathrooms).
The left leaning rich progressives are all hypocrites when it comes to investing, money, housing, tech, jobs, waste, emissions, and more.
Who knew the people who have the most to gain from capitalism would be so willing to also suck the dick of it for their own personal gain. Imagine that.
And for those unaware, the cost of homelessness does exist, and it is quite high. We pay for it through emergency services (police, doctors, ambulance, hospital beds), waste removal services, etc.
The problem needs fixed, and part of the solution is commie blocks unironically.
Very much so. Legal system, downtown areas, medical care… all face expenses of one sort or other, and those get passed on to the consumer and taxpayer. But a lot of people that don’t have to deal with the homeless because they live in a poor and/or rural area, or are incredibly hostile to homeless, that it’s fine for them to push the indirect tax onto areas that don’t have that demographic.
I’d be much more likely to support and sympathize with a group blowing up fossil fuel infrastructure than standing in the fucking road, blocking traffic.
The clear answer is yes. This is exactly like the people who say they won’t be allies anymore if we LGBT+ people aren’t polite enough.
No halfway decent person who isn’t a steaming pile of excrement would be deterred by such a protest. That user’s take stems from discourse specifically designed to shut down protests, and it’s imperative that we do not let it work.
So no, the “dude” doesn’t have a “point.” It’s all horseshit. Shut them down immediately when they start flapping their pie hole with that shit.
No halfway decent person who isn’t a steaming pile of excrement would be deterred by such a protest.
You assume there are significantly more “halfway decent people” than “steaming piles of excrement”. If your assumption were true, we would have abandoned fossil fuels in favor of electric vehicles at least 40 years ago, and wouldn’t be having this argument today. Humanity leans far more to the “excrement” side of this particular debate.
You need the support of quite a lot of the people you describe as “steaming piles of excrement”, and all you’re doing is driving them straight to the first politician who says “I’ll lock up every last one of these asshole protesters as soon as they step in the street” while taking the money of every oil tycoon on the planet.
No, OP’s idea is infinitely superior to those jobless, orange-coated jackasses.
You don’t actually need public support to shut down fossil fuel infrastructure if your supporters are organized and willing to perish over it. The doomers actually do have large enough numbers that they could organize and set up their own militias if they really wanted to. Hell, the right wing nutjobs do it all the time.
🤨 If that’s the way you regard your fellow man for protesting something simply because their protest inconveniences you, then it’s no wonder so many people are undeterred by possible jail time over it.
Damn dude. You all demand unending sympathy for rapists and pedophiles, but the second someone implies a threat to your access to McDonald’s and 7-11, all that talk goes out the window. Nope, off to jail you go! you say without a second’s thought toward the hypocrisy.
There’s no reason anyone should take you seriously.
You suggested they are ready, willing, and eager to go to jail, and now you’re arguing I’m some kind of bad guy because I share their desire for them to be jailed. And somehow, I’m the hypocrite?
You bike anywhere that doesn’t have these movement-infringing obstructionists. You don’t bike anywhere that does have such criminals.
“Jail” seemed the most appropriate option. “Hood ornament” and “speed bump” are perfectly reasonable alternatives, but you indicated their willingness for “jail”. “Jail” would make everyone happy.
Actually yes, you do, and I know because I’ve been on both sides of this equation. The only thing you can do is be patient and wait for them to pass or politely cheer them on and walk/push your bike around them. They are not seriously going to stop pedestrians.
The fact that they’re willing to endure jail over this is morally laudable. Jail is awful for those who can’t afford to bail themselves out. It shouldn’t be a place protesters are thrown into for exercising their first amendment rights but that’s how tyranny works.
You need to stop being selfish and grow the fuck up.
You keep using those words, but you clearly don’t comprehend their meaning.
“Selfish” is demanding exclusive access to public thoroughfares. “Selfish” is insisting that you are the only person who can use a public road. “Selfish” is denying public access to public roads.
“Tyranny” is when an individual forces the public to bend to their personal whims, instead of allowing them to conduct their own affairs in peace.
These people are not protesting. They are infringing on the rights of every person they deliberately delay.
Protesters have the right to speak. They do not have the right to demand a captive audience to hear their speech. They do not have the right to stop anyone who wants to move. They do not have the right to harass. You can speak; you cannot force anyone to listen, and you should be jailed for trying.
No, no, you’re being selfish. You can’t be assed to sit in traffic for 10 minutes or simply turn around to accommodate for other people’s right to protest. That silly thing people fought and died to have. All because you don’t want to tolerate being inconvenienced. That is the height of selfishness.
You are selfish. Selfish, selfish, selfish.
Drivig isn’t even a right, it’s a privilege. Legally it’s a privilege. You have no right to drive and never did. They do, however, have a right to protest.
Stop only caring about yourself and invest your mental energy in something other than your shitty 9 to 5.
No, no, you’re being selfish. You can’t be assed to sit in traffic
No, no, no: that isn’t traffic. I’m not stuck in traffic. “Traffic” is people trying to get from where they are to where they want to be. I have no problem sitting in traffic.
The problem is that they aren’t traveling. They aren’t creating “traffic”. They are detaining people. They are unlawfully stripping people of their right to travel, without their consent. Unlawful detention is a crime.
I’m not caring only for myself. I am caring about all the other people who are similarly being unlawfully detained by these selfish, tyrannical, criminals who have unilaterally stripped us of our right to travel in peace.
You can Share the road, get the fuck off the road, go to jail, or get run over. I don’t particularly care which one you pick, but “detain others” is not an option.
Yeah, you’re the one with the ability and the will to run them over and kill them and yet somehow, you’re the victim being detained. 🙄
Grow the fuck up. You are not a victim. It is not all about you. You are not entitled to 100% guaranteed access to empty roads.
You have to share the road with pedestrians and even protesters whether you like it or not. Protesters are a part of driving and a part of life you have to accept.
Do what you tell everyone else to do: Get over it.
You have to share the road with pedestrians and even protesters whether you like it or not. Protesters are a part of driving and a part of life you have to accept.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.
I have to share with travelers. I have no problem sharing with other people traveling on the road, even when the act of traveling introduces delays.
Protesters also have to share the road. They are not allowed to obstruct the road in the course of their protest. Obstructing the road is a criminal act specifically because the roads must be shared and “obstruction” is not sharing.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.
See, I can be obnoxious to prove a point too.
It doesn’t matter if protesters are hanging out in the middle of the road. You have to put up with them regardless. And honestly, the situation is too serious for your inconvenience to be taken into account. Fix the planet, then we’ll talk.
Pedestrians do, indeed, have the right of way. “Right of way” meaning they are traveling.
To have the right of way, you have to be traveling. If you are not traveling, you can have no right of way. If you are not traveling on a thoroughfare, you are obstructing traffic for those who are traveling.
Protesters obstructing traffic do not have the right of way. They are criminals, and it is a good thing that they like jail.
They have the right of way regardless of whatever they’re doing on the road. You don’t get to run them over like you’re in a Newgrounds game no matter how much you want to.
That means even when protesters are sitting on the road, you have to put up with it. Turn around. Find another route. Park and find another route.
That’s not what “right of way” means. They do not have the right of way. They are violating the right of way.
They can be arrested, charged, and convicted for obstructing traffic. Their act of violating the right of way can also constitute unlawful detention, and the detained can use force to escape or arrest their captor.
Yes it is what right of way means. You can’t just run over pedestrians on the street no matter how much they inconvenience you. You especially can’t run over protesters.
Get over their presence and get a life that doesn’t revolve around your 9 to 5, or you in general.
No, sorry, it is not. “Right of way” means they are legally permitted to be there. If they had the right of way, it would not be lawful to remove them.
They do not have the right of way. It may not be completely legal in all cases to run their asses over, but they do not have the right of way. The travelers they are obstructing have the right of way. Travelers have the right to use the road, but non-travelers are illegally infringing on that right.
Yes, actually, it is, and you have to deal with them whether you want to or not. You can’t justify your hatred and bloodlust against protesters with the law; the law sides with them.
So yes, protesters on the street have the right of way. That’s the price you pay to live in a country that claims to be free. Don’t like it, move to Russia with your topsie Putin.
Protests are supposed to raise awareness and motivate people to join their cause. These particular protests are turning away far more people from this cause than they are gaining.
These protests are ideal for promoting stricter laws against jaywalking and unlawful detention, but not so much for reducing the use of fossil fuels.
Oh, there is no implication about it: you need one hell of a justification to deliberately infringe on freedom of movement. It should be a criminal offense on the same level as “harassment” or “simple assault” to deliberately prevent someone from traveling. Each of these protesters should be charged with a separate count for each and every vehicle so delayed.
And, anyone so impeded should be justified in using any force necessary to end that unlawful impediment.
Reasonable person standard applies to all use of force, so no, not really.
The right to protest does not extend to infringing on the rights of another. My right to protest does not supersede your right to leave your home and travel in public. I cannot detain you or deny your free movement.
You do not have a monopoly on the use of public roads, sidewalks, etc. “Taking” the public roads or sidewalks for your private use is not reasonable.
It might be a fact of law, but if they have figured out some loophole that allows them to get away with it, the law can and should be changed to eliminate that loophole. And that’s the only real effect they will have: convincing the general public to adopt some authoritarian bullshit law that should not need to exist, because nobody should be enough of a cunt to deliberately impede movement.
The problem is studies have demonstrated it’s counterproductive both in the popular debate and at driving policy, it can actually set back the green movement.
Just because you agree with their idealism doesn’t mean you need to agree with their behaviour, if I burn tires to get awareness for climate change that isn’t something a sensible person supports
Oil prices rising won’t just affect cars that run on petroleum products. All your electricity bill will probably rise as well unless power in your area is 100% provided by renewable energy.
Even then, most renewable energy still rely on fossil fuel to run the vehicles for transporting and maintaining their infrastructure, so now even that cost would sharply increase.
Talking about EVs, just which EV companies have eliminated the involvement of any fossil fuel in their supply line? Unless we have enough of these supply lines, EV prices will also increase for the majority of people.
Very few electric plants burn petroleum products. Fossil fuel plants typically burn either coal or natural gas, neither of which would be significantly affected by disruption of oil-based infrastructure.
When an oil refinery blows up and gasoline prices are suddenly 8x what they are now are you going to be saying “OMG why did they do this without any kind of warning”?
Consider the possibility that blocking traffic, throwing paint on paintings and yachts, the orange dust, etc. might be a warning. If your commute is being blocked, use that time to think about what your plan will be when you can no longer afford to put gasoline in your car. Put emotion aside and think about how you would logically solve that problem. Because you might have to soon enough.
So you’ve chosen your side in this. No one needs to feel bad about the problems it’ll cause for you if and when it comes time to start blowing up refineries.
Correct. The problems of a blown up refinery will affect the oil producers first. The problems of obstructing traffic will affect the oil producers never.
Picket the oil infrastructure. Make it expensive and unreliable, and consumers will gravitate away from it. The problems it will cause are not a big, but a feature.
It could be said that blocking traffic benefits oil producers by increasing gasoline usage and making people less sympathetic to the cause against them. Wasn’t there a case of someone in the oil industry paying people to protest in a similarly asinine way?
Completed Resident Evil 2 back in 1998 with stacks and stacks of explosive, flame and acid round. Regretted saving all those ammo just for them to be gone forever, I could have had more fun with flying or flaming zombies dying all around me. Fast forward to current day, nothing has changed. I’m still a hoarding idiot.
In my Pokemon Red I used the Master Ball to catch a Polywhirl because I really liked Polywhirl, and underestimated how hard the legendaries would be to catch. Also I was like 8, so long term planning skills weren’t all that developed yet.
I had a fear of consequence and paranoia that something I did now might affect the future, which left me often very indecisive. Admittedly this was likely trauma that resulted from my parents being divorced at such a young age and my mother lying about it being one sided. Although later, she did admit that she was speaking out of hurt, and both of my parents agree that it was a mutual thing. I do have a healthy relationship with both parents, but damn the initial loss did fuck me up in some ways I’ve never gotten over.
I have a Snorlax in a Masterball somewhere, and I can attest - it also felt bad to get to Zapdos and try to use “REST” to make up for not having a Masterball. Lol.
…Wouldn’t it make more sense to just catch a Spearow
I typically never catch evolved forms unless it’s a situation where I legitimately didn’t realize “X evolves into Y”
Admittedly it was the first gen, it didn’t occour to me that Metapod was a cocoon for Caterpie until I heard about someone who had a Metapod that knew Tackle and Stringshot…
Still it is a mistake I sometimes make, recently caught a Floette in Violet, not realizing it evolves from Flabebe
I learned that lesson on a Snorlax, and so I have not thrown a Masterball since. Sure, I’ve got a complete Pokedex, and this appears to be a perfect stats shiny legendary, but that’s no reason for me to waste a Masterball.
Oh no, everyone else was, in fact, learning while you and the other whiners were either sleeping or smoking weed in the bathroom thinking they’re above it all and that doing what everyone else was doing was beneath them.
Yes. I always have and always will because I always loved learning for its own sake.
Learning is what gets you through hard times when you don’t know where your next meal is coming from.
Learning helps you get your next meal.
There is no hierarchy of needs. Your needs shift and change over time, and overlap most of the time.
Source: 40 years of life experience, survived abuse as a child and as an adult, escaped poverty and homelessness, and am now on track to return to college and own my own businesses, none of which would be possible without my education and desire to learn
Oh yeah I totally needed to learn about what a writer might have thought 200 years ago while writing EVERY SINGLE PAGE of his book, when I already knew that I wanted to do something with technology.
But we didnt have enough teachers for biology and physics and chemistry, so instead we got more literature.
I wonder where I (and our whole society) would be now if schools werent meant for preparing kids to transition into work, but instead about getting the full potential out of every kid.
Im German and I did learn English in school, but not really, because it was taught in a way that made me lose interest immediately.
I actually learned English when I started to watch Minecraft Youtubers in English because they had some interesting contraptions in their videos or something like that (Its been a while, I dont know exactly why I started watching them)
Not taking enough literature and humanities is how we end up with Elon. Every little wannabe engineer who thinks they shouldn’t have to take a humanities course should be smacked in the face by a physics demonstration.
If you think studying literature is to teach you literature, you’re sorely mistaken. Similar to if you think you study mathematics to learn mathematics.
You are taught literature so you can better communicate with other people. What is the author’s intention with this passage? What are they trying to say? What might their motivations be? Now apply this to a letter from a potential business partner or a politician’s tweet and you might begin to see how what you were taught becomes relevant.
Why are you taught grammar? Who cares whether you use the Oxford comma or not? Who has the need to know what mood, theme, and figurative language are? Apply this in the context of trying to write a professional email to your boss or trying to tell a story to engage other people, and maybe you’ll start to see that it wasn’t worthless.
Why do we need to know the way to prove that the angles of a triangle add up to 180? Who needs to know the Quadratic formula and how to apply it? It’s so you know how to think rationally and apply logic rigourously, so you don’t fall into familiar logical traps that we see on the evening news and the Internet every day.
Why do you need to know how cells reproduce? Why do we need to know how the pH scale works? It’s so when people on Facebook claim that vaccines erase your DNA or that alkaline water prevents cancer, you’ll know better.
lemmy.ml
Top