I agree. I saw Colin Farrell the actor literally cry on talk show, as he talked about homelessness in L.A.
Chief Sitting Bull couldn't understand WHY white people had homeless. In NYC he gave of his own money to help them.
No country is ":great" that has homeless people, seems to me.
Inflict years of stress, poverty, gun violence, malnutrition, manufactured economic recessions, housing scarcity, employment precarity, defunded public services, no medical care, mass death events, mass trauma, voter suppression, & toss in the Sacklers' monetization of substance abuse & addictions...then do some victim blaming...
Americans aren't going full fascist.
They're fed up with policy decisions made by the rich, for the rich.
You may have noticed that certain people, like the numbnuts I just responded to in this thread, only views societies in which it's EVEN POSSIBLE to have homelessness as "human history".
@Gigi I'm not talking about what is. I'm talking about what should be. That's what I meant. You're talking about something else. This isn't a debate. We were talking about different things. I don't disagree with what you're saying, it's just NOT WHAT I was talking about.
@Gigi This is my one day off in a period of difficulty. All I want to do is relax. I'm not arguing with you, but I sense some type of resistance on your part to hearing what I'm saying to you. ☮️ ✊🏾
Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, then.
For me: When someone says "X means society failed" meaning "this particular society failed" and it's discussing a society based, among other things, on an illegitimate concept of land ownership based on theft, it's NOT actually failing.
@StillIRise1963 Homeless doesn't mean society has failed, unless you believe society has always been a failure. We know there were homeless people at least as far back as ancient Mesopotamia. There are simply some people who don't want to carry their own weight and who want SOCIETY to carry them.
@StillIRise1963 If we had 0 homelessness, 0 hunger, etc etc then maybe we could reevaluate billionaires. It's the having both at once which is the most galling.
@StillIRise1963 I was just thinking about this the other day. For context, I am in a third world country.
I was outside of my condo the other day and a guy pulled up in a car that is easily worth 10 condos here. It is probably worth about as much as my parents 5 bedroom house in the states.
I live pretty comfortably here, but there is extreme poverty. I started wondering why society can even function when there is such a divide between people.
@StillIRise1963@my_actual_brain I believe the rich experience security not the way that normal people do - "Are my needs met?", but in a maladaptive way of "Am I winning?"
They seem to need reminders of how much money they COULD lose, or their wealth isn't worth anything to them. The feeling of being "special" and "chosen" to be in a wealthy group seems to be the motivation, not the money itself (which has to lose meaning pretty fast at those sums.) Therefore a "lower" class MUST exist for them to feel like they have anything at all. And the "lower" that class gets, the more money they feel like they have.
This is a raw and simple truth, and we'd be a lot further along if all those peeps in those big, white marble buildings would get their collective heads out of their asses and admit it.
@StillIRise1963 For fun I will always take the pro argument and try to defend billionaires in debates with my wife… I have yet to move the needle on her opinion of them.
Add comment