Unhoused people

I'm not opposed to the message, but did it have to be an AI generated picture?
- I’m torn on whether this is AI. The AI detectors I put it in say no, and the letters being consistent (all T’s looking like all other T’s, etc) says real person to me rather than machine generated. The wood grain is also consistent beneath the lettering, and it and the chain link fence don’t meander or disappear in any weird ways that I see.
  That said the building in the background looks weird to me, as does the lighting. And the combination of the wood grain plus the texture on the lettering does give it that weird quality that AI text tends to have, it immediately made me question it as well. I just can’t decide if it’s a weird artifact of real textures clashing or not.
  
  Its edited/manipulated in some way. The E's are all the same, even the bump on the bottom part is there for all of them.
  Might be photoshop moreso than ai
- Why not

FUCK AI
- Yeah, I agree if something made by ai it shouldn't be posted in anyway
- Weird place to make this stand
  
  Its slop, if you want to make a political point you shouldn't need to steal (that post is AI generated)
  
  Weird place to start a debate over it

The US doesn't want to addtess its spiraling homelessness problem because giving them homes means they now treat homeless people better than the people who work 40hrs a week to barely pay for a home.

Yep, it's literally in the name unhoused/homeless. Will giving someone a home fix mental health and/or addiction issues? Probably not. But providing permanent, stable housing is a necessary first step.
- Housing would clear a great deal of homeless off the street, but the recalcitrant people, no idea how to deal with them.
  And no one ever proposes where to build this housing. Sorry, but NIMBY, not around my children and home. And anyone who says they would be fine housing the homeless in their hood is a liar or has no experience with homeless people. A great many of them are bugfuck at best, violent at worst.
  Met a trans (?) dude in the woods the other day. He was madly packing his tent and throwing on a jacket and boots to hide his girl clothes (literally little girl clothes). I tried to calm him, chat a bit, let him know I'm peaceful. The shotgun and pistol probably didn't help my case. :(
  I regret not trying to help him more, wasn't sure what to do. Gave him some trash bags and advised him to pick up the area so none of us get hassled for being back there. Wish I had sat him down and explained the area, directed him to more private places to camp.
  Thought much about him. He seemed sane enough, but could he actually hold a job? Just show up on time, work, leave? He was so scared it was hard to get through to him, see how he was really doing. Anyway, that's been eating on me, so I'm dropping this on y'all.
  
  And anyone who says they would be fine housing the homeless in their hood is a liar or has no experience with homeless people.
  On my street is a halfway house for recently released prisoners
  Next street over is a bunch of housing for formerly homeless
  In a few years, my entire street will be demolished to build new mixed-use housing, including some units set aside for formerly homeless, veterans, and teachers (this was prominently noted on the rental lease agreement and we know it's coming eventually).
  I'm fine with it. It's a peaceful street. There are kids and families and people walking their dogs and old men fishing at the ass-crack of dawn. The people who are allowed to live there are vetted and have case managers and are given job training and psychological and medical support. I'm sure it's expensive as all fuck to the government/nonprofits involved to run it that way, and it only serves a relatively small number of people, but it works very well from everything I've seen.
  
  And no one ever proposes where to build this housing. Sorry, but NIMBY, not around my children and home.
  Tell me you don't live in a city without telling me you don't live in a city

It's also funny to me when people say they are Christian but don't want to help the poor. The good Samaritan is very clear. So is the bit about the sheep and the goats.
But you can use the Bible to justify anything, I guess.
- Christianity is about control for the powerful and bedtime stories to make you feel better about inexcusable shitty behavior for the masses.
  
  That's the church. I would take care to keep the institution distinct from the spirituality. Some of the most practicing and compassionate radical leftists I've ever met have been christian anarchists.
- Love thy neighbor as thy self, because let's be real, they can just fend for themselves, and if they don't, well, fuck the poor. I mean, why should I have to take care of all these lazy bums? They're always begging for scraps anyway. It's like, if you can't handle a little poverty, then maybe you shouldn't be living here. Fuck the poor.
- I'm not Christian and I don't want to see them. Also I didn't consider housing them to be my job. That's why we have government that we elect and pay taxes to in order to fund it. This is just bs sign that simply virtue signaling instead of asking hard questions.
  
  You don't want to see them because you want them to be housed, or you want them to be forcibly moved so they're unhoused out of sight?
  The government should be doing more for the housing crisis, but a first step for that is getting people aware of the issue and on board with solutions.
  
  How are those government people that you elected working out?

I have a cousin from a wealthy family who chooses to be homeless. He can’t be committed against his will and he doesn’t want the responsibility of just having a room in his parents house or with relatives.
A lot of people have this idea that housing everyone will fix the people who just aren’t gonna do it without it being forced on them
- One of the biggest issues when talking about homelessness is conflating the two different groups - people who are homeless through unfortunate circumstances, and people who are incapable of living in society. One side thinks all homeless are the former group, the other side thinks all homeless are the latter group. Truth is, both exist. You can't take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. However, there ARE some homeless for whom that's all they need.
  Ending homelessness requires a granular, personal approach. And that shit is EXPENSIVE.
  
  Ending homelessness requires a granular, personal approach. And that shit is EXPENSIVE.
  But generally less expensive than letting the problem fester. Police, medics, sanitation, and so on is expensive as hell.
  
  And that shit is EXPENSIVE.
  Or takes all of society to get involved, rather than outsourcing it to government via taxes.
  
  You're just wrong. No granular approach is needed. It's not complicated at all.
  Offer people housing without conditions and people do take it. Finland did this and it eliminated homelessness there.
  The cousin from a rich family "choosing" to be homeless over living with family is likely "choosing" that option because he doesn't want to take harsh psychiatric medications, have a curfew of 9 PM in his 20s, and be criticized for going out to socialize. It's likely the "choice" involves a rejection of extremely oppressive rules and he doesn't have decent options.
  You can actually take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. Often that type of person chooses voluntarily to deal with some issues once housed. What you can't do is take a schizophrenic drug addict and offer housing contingent upon really harsh anti-psychotics and weekly drug testing plus loss of housing if they don't comply, administered by extremely expensive social workers who end up feeling like police. That is also what makes traditional programs so expensive.
  I often think people who think homelessness is a complex nuanced issue just want there to be homelessness or buy into upper class lies justifying homelessness which keep the lower classes fearful and obedient.
- Is the goal here to provide everyone with access to a home or to force everyone into a home?
- A given % of the homeless are capable of finding housing and actively avoid it. That number is not 100%, but it is not 0% either.

I wish more countries could address this issue rather than trying to pretend it isn't an issue by implementing hostile architecture.

I have more respect for someone who goes "I hate homeless people, I think they're scum" and pushes for actually housing them because they don't ever want to see them again, over someone who goes "Oh those poor dears! We really should do something!" and then just likes a social media post about hostile architecture and leaves it at that.

Straight to the jail. _/s

Agreed, give people dignity and safety. We all need help sometimes

- Panhandling does not produce enough income to maintain a residence; if you think it does, go try it yourself.
  Shelters are often highly restrictive, crowded or full, and more dangerous to person and property than hiding out somewhere.
  There is a relatively high correlation between mental illness and homelessness. Pile on top of that substance abuse as self-medication. This makes navigating the bureaucracy that is HUD very difficult.
  Fuck you.
  
  ^^^
  Shit, even if I really wanted to help someone panhandling, it's not like I ever have any cash on me.
  high correlation between mental illness and homelessness
  Probably as much cause as effect. Same with the substance abuse, everything in life is shit, you don't have enough to get off the street but you can afford to get high enough not to care in the moment.
  
  Some people lick the boot. Some people vigorously apply polish with their tongue.
  
  That last bullet point really drives home the point.
- Are you the kind of person who thinks everybody chooses to be homeless?
  
  "Slavery was a choice"
  -Kanye West
  Also, Kanye West: "I'm a nazi"
  I'm starting to see a parttern here... 🤔
  
  Hey, you kinda messed up writing your question, just letting you know. They sure seem like that kind of person, the deeply shitty kind.
- Lol
- Section 8 has an 8 year wait list and you still have to pay 1/3 of your income, which is how much rental companies should be charging anyway. It levels the field, it’s not free housing.
- You're just satisfied with society abandoning its worst off as the visible reminder of what a shithole of a society we have. You have a lot of company since the owner class gutted public education to complete ruin over decades though.
  There is no "or" though. There is no world where the homeless punches themselves in the face or hides themselves from your eyeline for your amusement because there's no point in appeasing the legion of sociopaths for profit "news" media has made like you in exchange for nothing. They'd rather eat with that panhandling money, and they're right, sorry.

FUCK AI