politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yeah. I'm torn.
On one hand, I've seen what happens when homeless people, especially the worst of them, take over a public space without supervision. It is not hyperbole to say they destroy the area. The massive homeless camps in downtown Denver featured needles, excrement, unwashed clothing, and, in two instances I personally witnessed, a fire that tore through the area, destroying the homeless camp and risking damage to everything around. I get that we need to do better on housing all around and support the various proposals (such as homeless communities, repurposing abandoned buildings, etc), but there has to be an element of enforcement, including disallowing camping in areas not specifically purposed for camping, ensuring that people move on, and forced relocations, if for no other purpose than to address buildups of trash and vermin (to be clear: rats, not the people, I'm not calling homeless vermin 🙄 ). And IMO, a key component of this is funding a public healthcare program that addresses mental illness, such as Proposition 1 in California. This is good because addressing mental illness can lead to reduced drug abuse, which is a major cause of homelessness.
But on the other, what Newsom is doing is using tricks right out of the Trump playbook by demanding that cities and counties adopt policies they do not wish to implement to share in the funding that would make homelessness go down. I also notice that there are no requirements for carrots, only sticks. I.E. no demand that supervised camping sites be set up, or empty buildings bought up and repurposed as housing. Just the requirement that you're unwelcome in public places if you're unhoused, and that the law will be brought against you if you dare persist in the same place for 4 days in a row, no matter how much you take care of that space. Seems like he's working to appeal to the Right? "See, I can be as heartless and cruel as any Republican!" Makes me less inclined to vote for him.
The other issue that you forgot to mention is a lot of red states take their homeless people and send them to California.
I live in LA. I've been threatened by people who are homeless. Multiple times. Yes, these people deserve help. But there's a billion reasons why our current system isn't working and part of that is the state can't institutionalize these people to get them clean from drugs and to help start them on the pathway to being a productive citizen again.
I live in the Miracle Mile area, and I do not give a shit about someones 'right' to camp on the sidewalk with a huge ass tent that smells of shit. Sorry, but that's a public health hazard.
Do I want people to get help? Absolutely. Do I think that people who live in these areas also deserve to live in a safe and clean environment? Absolutely.
Something has to be done, at least Gavin is trying things.
This is fascist thinking - the cult of action for the sake of action. You can't identify any real solution to the problem, but by God, you want SOMETHING done. And that something, when undefined, inevitably just means, "send law enforcement to torture them until they kill themselves."
TIL wanting people to not live in homeless encampments that are dangerous is fascist. Thanks for that. Lets see you take in the guy who mumbles to himself and is addicted to heroin into your home and treat him how about that?
Do you not know what fascism is? The cult of action is one of the hallmarks of Fascism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
This policy has all the marks of the cult of action. It does nothing to actually solve the homelessness issue. It focuses on using cruel brute force to punish the undesirable members of society. It's a performative action not meant to actually achieve any noble end, but simply to show that the regime is "doing something."
How is this actually helping anyone? What good actually comes from spending millions in public resources to endlessly shuffle homeless people from one location to another?
The state is using performative violence simply as a propaganda tool to make citizens think the government is "doing something." That is the cult of action for action's sake. It's literally one of the textbook characteristics of fascism.
This isn't hyperbole. We're talking fascism 101 here. California is sending in the jack boots to terrorize the undesiables. How is that not fascism?
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Banning homeless encampments is not fascism 101.
Let's look at the series of events:
California severely restricts the supply of housing to benefit the wealthy. Existing homeowners and corporate landlords get rich as the price of housing soars, as the state actively restricts people from building enough to keep up with the need.
Homelessness rates soar. Millions find that the market value of their labor is now exceeded by the market value of rent. They become homeless through no fault of their own.
Instead of providing adequate services to the homeless, the state responds by demonizing the homeless. Homeless people are stereotyped. Any crime committed by a homeless person is shouted about from the rooftops. A hate campaign is enacted to portray the homeless as violent, drug-addicted, and insane. The homeless use drugs at a lower rate than the housed, but public opinion believes the opposite. Their disheveled state is portrayed as a deep character flaw rather than simply an inevitable consequence of their material reality. People are made homeless through no fault of their own. But the public is convinced through a vast propaganda campaign that the homeless deserve to be homeless and are fundamentally evil people.
The state unleashes a campaign of performative terror on the homeless population. Police disband camps and force people out, without providing anywhere for these people to go. It is simply action for action's sake. Newsom can proudly state, "I didn't solve homelessness, but I sure made their lives a living hell by forcing them to endlessly move from place to place! The dirty hobos deserve it!"
That's textbook fascism. Newsom doesn't have a solution to this problem. Solutions do exist, but they would require building enough housing to drive down its cost. And that would hurt the bank accounts of rich people. So instead, Newsom has unleashed a state terror campaign against California's homeless population. The goal of this terror campaign isn't to solve homelessness or to help anyone in any manner. It is meant to show middle class and wealthy people that Newsom is making those "dirty homeless people" pay for their sins. Well off folks are tired of seeing the homeless that they created in public view. So Newsom is promising to use state terror to drive them out of the public sphere entirely.
If you think this isn't fascism, well...you need to learn what fascism actually is.
Except that's not what WoodScientist said. He didn't say that wanting to end dangerous homeless encampments is fascist. He said that doing something just for the sake of doing something without careful thought is a key aspect of fascist thinking. "Act first and fuck the thinking" is how Fascists work, attacking rationality and denying thought in order to suppress their followers ability to see through the lies Fascism clinks to. Fascist thinking doesn't mean you're a fascist, though. It just means that you're prone to accept Fascism if you continue to think like a fascist, and at a minimum, you're going to make a bad decision.
Again. I don't disagree with the notion of "no, we're not going to let you live on the streets and harass your neighbours." I do think that it should be paired with things like expanding housing in all forms and making it easier for people to get on their feet, however. And I don't think a strong-arm tactic of denying the funding for those positive things to compel communities to adopt your hard ball tactics is something I want to see somebody on my side doing. Those are Trump tactics. Leave them to Trump.