It's also forgetting that a significant portion of homeless people are homeless by choice, or are homeless for reasons that just providing housing won't resolve.
People have this idea that all homeless people are just regular people who experienced hard times, but that's just a minority. Most homeless are mentally ill people who won't take their meds or drug addicts who aren't willing to quit.
It sucks, and they shouldn't have to live on the streets, but you can't force people to change.
I don’t think people have that idea at all, if anything they are more likely to assume a homeless person is mentally ill and drug addicted than they are to think they are experiencing hard times or employed but unable to pay for housing.
However housing first has been pretty successful, but goes against many people’s values for some reason. The big fear of someone getting something undeserved is strong.
You're more than welcome to look up statistics. ~60% of the chronicly homeless have life long mental health issues, and ~80% have substance abuse issues.
Pretty much every city/state has resources to help the homeless, but the homeless have to be willing to accept the help. Most shelters are drug free, so addicts don't want to stay there and they won't accept people whose mental illness makes them violent.
You can't force a person to take their medicine or stop doing drugs unless you want to start building more prisons.
Again, I was never saying that all homelessness is a choice, but a lot of people choose not to accept the help that's available.
Source: My wife has her masters in the field and used to work with these populations as an addiction counselor, in Texas, so I know that resources exist at a state level even in a state that clearly hates it's citizens.
You’re more than welcome to look up statistics. ~60% of the chronicly homeless have life long mental health issues, and ~80% have substance abuse issues.
When did I say anything remotely resembling what you're implying here? You are saying it is mostly a choice. That is what I am disputing. That is not statistics. You are assigning value and making assumptions in the absence of evidence.
Again, I was never saying that all homelessness is a choice, but a lot of people choose not to accept the help that’s available.
I did not say you said all homelessness is a choice. I said, for the 3rd time now, that I objected to your assigning choice as the primary cause that explains why most people are homeless. Stop reducing our points and putting up strawmen. Stop pretending I'm saying things I didn't say. Stop responding to arguments I am not making. So let's try this again:
You said:
"People have this idea that all homeless people are just regular people who experienced hard times, but that’s just a minority. Most homeless are mentally ill people who won’t take their meds or drug addicts who aren’t willing to quit."
I said:
"Framing this as primarily a choice is deeply problematic."
So are you going to actually talk about what we said or are you going to keep building strawmen and pretending you can't read what I'm writing?
Neoliberals never seem to get around to actually address what's being said. They just hem and haw about why they can't do anything about it, as they pull their SUVs into the third stall in their garage.
Honestly, it feels even more pernicious than that. People like him just try on opinion like hats, to borrow from the “alt-right playbook,” then discard them when they are no longer convenient. They aren’t even trying to make a coherent argument, they’re just trying to tear down the argument of whoever they are talking to. And when that fails, they just go “well, it’s not like I ever made a statement about what I believe. I’m just explaining the logic” and similar nonsense.
I've certainly noticed the change. There are some posts lately that are indistinguishable from those on alt-right breeding grounds like 4chan and reddit. That's why I wasn't too gung-ho about persuading people to join Lemmy -- there were a lot of people on reddit I was hoping wouldn't come.
I've started using raddle more, which comes with its own problems, but at least I don't have to start by convincing people not to hate marginalized groups every time I open my inbox.
Raddle is a site similar to reddit, but it's run by anarchists (anarcho-primitivists to be specific, but I've never felt unwelcome as an anarcho-communist)
Yeah, liberals and conservatives only differ on whether gay people should be put to death, so you're not really saying much. And being liberal does not, whatsoever, make you immune to conservative propaganda. We live in a capitalist society, founded on liberal values: whether conservatives know it or not, it is liberal values they are conserving.
Also, as I've said about 5 times now, no one is saying that building houses alone will solve the issue. So stop beating that strawman.
I believe you are arguing in good faith, so I'm hoping you can provide a source for your claim that the majority suffer from mental illness or drug addiction.
Yeah that can't be right... The problem with these discussions I think is there's a very big difference between the technical definition of homeless, and the one people use colloquially.
It's the most visible minority of homeless people that tend to be the entrenched ones people think of when they think of homelessness, and those people essentially have nothing in common with the other "homeless" people other than having no permanent home. It makes the discussion harder as people are using the same word but talking about different things.
What is this trying to say???
It's also forgetting that a significant portion of homeless people are homeless by choice, or are homeless for reasons that just providing housing won't resolve.
People have this idea that all homeless people are just regular people who experienced hard times, but that's just a minority. Most homeless are mentally ill people who won't take their meds or drug addicts who aren't willing to quit.
It sucks, and they shouldn't have to live on the streets, but you can't force people to change.
I don’t think people have that idea at all, if anything they are more likely to assume a homeless person is mentally ill and drug addicted than they are to think they are experiencing hard times or employed but unable to pay for housing.
However housing first has been pretty successful, but goes against many people’s values for some reason. The big fear of someone getting something undeserved is strong.
Some might say the big fear of someone getting something undeserved is strong enough to prop up an entire political party.
But it is not exclusive to them, of course. Some are just very bad about it.
Framing this as primarily a choice is deeply problematic.
For many it literally is a choice, and framing homelessness as something that no one has control over is problematic.
No don't change the parameters here. You said "most" are mentally ill or drug addicts who are
"unwilling" to get help.
I never said it was something no one has control over. I said "framing it primarily as a choice." Do not put words in my mouth.
You're more than welcome to look up statistics. ~60% of the chronicly homeless have life long mental health issues, and ~80% have substance abuse issues.
Pretty much every city/state has resources to help the homeless, but the homeless have to be willing to accept the help. Most shelters are drug free, so addicts don't want to stay there and they won't accept people whose mental illness makes them violent.
You can't force a person to take their medicine or stop doing drugs unless you want to start building more prisons.
Again, I was never saying that all homelessness is a choice, but a lot of people choose not to accept the help that's available.
Source: My wife has her masters in the field and used to work with these populations as an addiction counselor, in Texas, so I know that resources exist at a state level even in a state that clearly hates it's citizens.
When did I say anything remotely resembling what you're implying here? You are saying it is mostly a choice. That is what I am disputing. That is not statistics. You are assigning value and making assumptions in the absence of evidence.
I did not say you said all homelessness is a choice. I said, for the 3rd time now, that I objected to your assigning choice as the primary cause that explains why most people are homeless. Stop reducing our points and putting up strawmen. Stop pretending I'm saying things I didn't say. Stop responding to arguments I am not making. So let's try this again:
You said:
"People have this idea that all homeless people are just regular people who experienced hard times, but that’s just a minority. Most homeless are mentally ill people who won’t take their meds or drug addicts who aren’t willing to quit."
I said:
"Framing this as primarily a choice is deeply problematic."
So are you going to actually talk about what we said or are you going to keep building strawmen and pretending you can't read what I'm writing?
Neoliberals never seem to get around to actually address what's being said. They just hem and haw about why they can't do anything about it, as they pull their SUVs into the third stall in their garage.
Honestly, it feels even more pernicious than that. People like him just try on opinion like hats, to borrow from the “alt-right playbook,” then discard them when they are no longer convenient. They aren’t even trying to make a coherent argument, they’re just trying to tear down the argument of whoever they are talking to. And when that fails, they just go “well, it’s not like I ever made a statement about what I believe. I’m just explaining the logic” and similar nonsense.
I think you're spot on.
I've certainly noticed the change. There are some posts lately that are indistinguishable from those on alt-right breeding grounds like 4chan and reddit. That's why I wasn't too gung-ho about persuading people to join Lemmy -- there were a lot of people on reddit I was hoping wouldn't come.
I've started using raddle more, which comes with its own problems, but at least I don't have to start by convincing people not to hate marginalized groups every time I open my inbox.
What’s raddle?
Raddle is a site similar to reddit, but it's run by anarchists (anarcho-primitivists to be specific, but I've never felt unwelcome as an anarcho-communist)
https://raddle.me/
I go by ObiWanHelloThere_wav on raddle
This is just conservative propaganda
I'm a liberal, buddy. Homelessness is a very complex issue that won't be solved by building more housing.
Yeah, liberals and conservatives only differ on whether gay people should be put to death, so you're not really saying much. And being liberal does not, whatsoever, make you immune to conservative propaganda. We live in a capitalist society, founded on liberal values: whether conservatives know it or not, it is liberal values they are conserving.
Also, as I've said about 5 times now, no one is saying that building houses alone will solve the issue. So stop beating that strawman.
I believe you are arguing in good faith, so I'm hoping you can provide a source for your claim that the majority suffer from mental illness or drug addiction.
Yeah that can't be right... The problem with these discussions I think is there's a very big difference between the technical definition of homeless, and the one people use colloquially.
It's the most visible minority of homeless people that tend to be the entrenched ones people think of when they think of homelessness, and those people essentially have nothing in common with the other "homeless" people other than having no permanent home. It makes the discussion harder as people are using the same word but talking about different things.
https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/homelessness_programs_resources/hrc-factsheet-current-statistics-prevalence-characteristics-homelessness.pdf
Page 4
There is nothing there that says it’s a choice.