• Undearius@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    25 days ago

    This is from the city where it’s illegal to be homeless. One man even collected over $100,000 in fines for being homeless.

    Yeah, that’ll help.

    • Bonsoir@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      25 days ago

      It’s not “being homeless” that is illegal, though. It’s drinking in public, begging or sleeping in the metro. And it sure is tough not staying in the metro during winter. There are some organisms that can provide shelter, but not enough for everyone, and it usually cost a couple dollars, which not everyone have everyday. And it’s a real problem on both sides, as the metro was not meant to become a shelter for the homeless, and people have been complaining more and more that they feel unsafe there.

      • zaph@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        25 days ago

        Sure “being homeless” isn’t the crime itself but you’re being naive if you don’t think the laws make homelessness illegal. What are they supposed to do? Go find a piece of land no one has claim to and freeze to death?

        • Bonsoir@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          25 days ago

          And what are we supposed to do? Legalize all drugs and being drunk in public just to avoid having to fine them, and install beds everywhere in the Underground City (and in this post’s case, in emergency stairwells at the Complexe Desjardins) with no regard for their regular use?
          Sure, let’s work on proposing more accessible legal alternatives. Just take note that these laws weren’t created to punish the homeless, but to have a clean and safe public space - which have been degrading for some time now.

            • Bonsoir@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              25 days ago

              That sound pretty much like the “If you’re poor, just buy a house” people.
              I think you don’t know much about Montréal. There are solutions already in place to help homeless people who want to go out of the street, but the housing crisis is pretty new and it will take years to solve. It wasn’t so bad a few years ago.

              • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                25 days ago

                It’s actually nothing like that at all. What you’re describing is putting a societal problem on the shoulders of individuals. What I’m suggesting is that society should actually fix the problems it has created.

                Every place that has taken a “housing first” approach has seen success out of it. But people insist on making the problem more complicated than it is, because we’ve built an entire society on the false idea that poor people somehow deserve to be poor and anything done to help them is somehow unjust.

      • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        25 days ago

        It’s a joke. The implication is that the repeated playing of Baby Shark could be considered torture, other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment.

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            24 days ago

            yeah it’s completely legal to torture people so long as you don’t call them your prisoners

            • JackbyDev@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              24 days ago

              Dude, I’m not saying this is a cool and good thing to do lol, fuck them for doing this, for real. It’s that the Geneva convention has to do with stuff relating to war and a lot of the things people say violate it often don’t. Like people will say that tear gas is a Geneva convention violation but it actually says tear gas is allowable for controlling prison riots.

              I just wish people would point to actually relevant documents when criticizing people for their misdeeds if they’re bringing up documents. The truth is we shouldn’t need some document to criticize this action. It’s inherently disgusting. It distracts from the point when people bring up irrelevant things like the Geneva convention.

  • buzz86us@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    Ugh how did this super old song become a thing… I swear people are getting dumber. I hated it when they sang it at summer camp, and I still hate it now.

        • DillyDaily@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 days ago

          This comment thread now feels uniquely American.

          I have never heard those songs, in the 90s at school and scout camps in Australia we would sing Ging Gang Goolie, Alice the Camel, and Ain’t no Flies.

          Also for some reason we would chant about how ugly and unlovable we are and resign ourselves to eating worms… Children’s songs are so unhinged.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    We can solve homelessness once and for all by making every part of civilization just suck as much as possible. If literally no part of our society is capable of supporting safety and life, then all the homeless people will just move along

  • EmoDuck@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    25 days ago

    What’s with the wording of this title? “Unhoused people” instead of “Homeless”/“Homeless people”

    • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 days ago

      I heard a really good explanation of this on NPR. Homeless is a label put on a person, similar to saying a person is a redhead. The implication of saying that someone is homeless is that it defines who they are, that it cannot be easily changed.

      Unhoused is more descriptive of the situation that a person is in. This is a condition that can be changed, it isn’t who the person is.

      As I revisit this and think it through though, it seems like another way of pushing the goal. There are absolutely negative connotations with the word homeless, but the same venom will eventually attach to unhoused as well.

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      25 days ago

      It’s another one of those whack a mole words people are pushing. Once everyone gives in and we start using unhoused, it will suddenly switch to uninhabited because it’s racists to houses or something!

      It’s annoying as hell, because instead of fixing the issues we’re mastrubating about words and alienating people that we need to fix the issue.

    • sunbytes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      25 days ago

      I think the idea is to put the responsibility for housing onto society/authority as opposed to the victim.

        • sunbytes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          25 days ago

          Perhaps to some people, but to me it does sound like a homeless person just happens to be without.

          Whereas an unhoused person has been let down by whoever is responsible for ensuring people are housed.

          • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            24 days ago

            I dont see how. If anything, its just a matter of time until you see houseless as being their fault. Because the baggage is something you (and society in general) is adding. Its not implicit in the word itself.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 days ago

    Great way to lose customers

    Having said that, what’s up with the “unhoused” thing? It homeless. Are we now calling it differently because homeless is now all of the sudden insulting? How long until “unhoused” suddenly is a bad word?

    Can we please just stop pushing changing words? Homeless is fine, you’re without a home. It sucks, people should support you, not shun you, but changing words is just virtue signalling that doesn’t do anything to make anything better for anyone

    • Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      but changing words is just virtue signalling that doesn’t do anything to make anything better for anyone

      … And if you are the type of neoliberal politician that wants to pretend they care about people while never actually doing anything to help anyone other than the megacorps when you get into power – Then this is literally all you’ll ever do for people. Linguistic fuckery. Making up new words for things. Fucking around with definitions. And you know that there will be an army of people who will defend this, and shoot down people who actually want to do something on grounds that they said the “wrong” words.

      The argument for ‘unhoused’ is that it humanises the person – But it’s really pushing it.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      24 days ago

      Homeless what, exactly? Sorry, you’re gonna need to throw in the word “person” just to be clear.

      • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        24 days ago

        I’ll asume y’all are stupid and privileged and not just cruel. Home can be a public shelter, it is about people. A house is a thing you rent or own.

        Not everything is politics, virtue signaling or about you. We use different words because language changes, because society changes. That is why you don’t speak Anglo-Saxon anymore.

        It’s about precision. The condition people are talking about is not having a house, regardless of whether they have a home. This is why unhoused is being used more often.

        It’s not part of an agenda, it is not about you. Grow up.