Imagine if they donated to helping others instead of helping lawyers.
That post seems to be missing.
preciouspupp 83 points 3 years ago
That would be communism.
RegularGoose 7 points 3 years ago
It's only capitalism if the recipients have to pay back the donations with interest and the building gets reposessed when they miss a payment.
11181514 35 points 3 years ago
Years ago I had an interview with GoFundMe and as part of the interview process they wanted me to create a campaign and share it with family and friends. Then they asked for feedback on their website. I told them how disgusting that was to ask of me (I didn't do it) and never heard back.
galaxi 5 points 3 years ago
That reminds me of an interview I did. It was a partial graphic design/videographer sort of job (my focus is in design). I was looking to break into the field, it was entry level. But the guy interviewing didn't want to fund or provide any kind of equipment like cameras. He suggested to me that I could crowdfund to get equipment so I could work for him. Seriously, lol. It was entry level pay too. Anyway, I was pretty quick to tell him I wasn't at all okay with my social circles and family funding things necessary for a new job.
TokenBoomer -37 points 3 years ago
Yeah, a for profit company that accepts money to keep people on the streets is communism.
TokenBoomer -31 points 3 years ago
I don’t know. It hurts my brain thinking like a liberal.
notacuban 15 points 3 years ago
"tokenboomer", poorly executed references to the "everything is communism" trope, insulting "the liberals"... Come on guy, trolling is a subtle art. You can do better, I believe in you.
Pregnenolone 5 points 3 years ago
I imagine it hurts your brain doing many things
TopShelfVanilla 3 points 3 years ago
It's past your bedtime.
TokenBoomer 0 points 3 years ago
Glad it’s not working. That gives me hope.
TokenBoomer 25 points 3 years ago
They voted for the referendum that raised their taxes that paid for this housing that they don’t want in their backyard.
moistclump 23 points 3 years ago
What ever happened to Occupy Wallstreet? It gave me a flicker of hope, back in the day.
library_napper 30 points 3 years ago
They got pepper sprayed, beaten, and sent to for-profit prisons.
CryptoRoberto 20 points 3 years ago
While every news channel/media org painted them as awful dangerous people. Most likely homeless and doing drugs!
curiousaur 3 points 3 years ago
Except that by definition it divides?
moistclump 1 point 3 years ago
I think it’s fair to say “the thing that unites” when it’s about 99.8% (or whatever) of the people.
curiousaur 1 point 3 years ago
This isn't the 1% that fought this, it's the 10%.
circuitfarmer 82 points 3 years ago
Ah, NIMBYs.
Eat the rich.
CryptoRoberto 6 points 3 years ago
Hey, they vote Democrat and dress like hippies still so they're not the problem. All the filthy poors and scary minorities just need to stay out of their neighborhood and they'll be fine.
TheDoozer 21 points 3 years ago
I've yet to meet a Democrat that didn't have problems with (at least some) Democrats. Democrats aren't really the "fall in line" types that Republicans tend to be, for good or ill. Before the Pandemic, the Anti-Vaxx movement was largely in left-leaning areas, and every sane Democrat had lots of problems with those types, for example. And the "Let's help minorities (but not near me)" mentality is fairly prevalent in the more affluent Left-leaning circles, and I don't think most Democrats would disagree with that.
Cethin 7 points 3 years ago
It's the big tent party, though they do a better job representing some than others. Republicans have a pretty narrow ideology, but democrats range anywhere left of far right. It really should be multiple parties, but the US is fucked and has a two party system that is somehow both mostly conservative. I'm hoping we're watching the republican party explode right now and the democrats will split into two parties.
restingboredface 4 points 3 years ago
The problem is that basically democrats are the party of 'protect us from Republicans' and it's the one thing we agree on. Dividing by actual beliefs would only reduce the numbers of people available to shut down the nonsense Republicans are pulling.
Rocketpoweredgorilla 74 points 3 years ago
Imagine if all that money actually went to those that need it, instead of lawyers and miscellaneous bullshit. In the end that'll be way over 100k (and probably much higher) that could have gone to actually helping people, instead of fueling some rich people's tantrum.
Death_Equity -20 points 3 years ago
SF spends about $57k-70k per homeless person. They have around 19k homeless people. It has had no overall effect on the problem due to the high COL and low affordable housing availability, ignoring the willfully homeless and hopelessly lost drug addicts that nothing but "inhumane" force can address.
SF is too favorable to homelessness and inhospitable to poverty to actually meaningfully address the issue with twice as much spending as they have now.
Clent 29 points 3 years ago
Homeless shelters need to stop treating them like animals. Imagine picking the streets over a shelter with draconian rules.
I bet to cannot because you lack empathy with anyone in a lower socioeconomic situation than yours.
GBU_28 3 points 3 years ago
You can't go in with your bigger stuff, for a fair reason. ( Pests, weapons, drugs). Many avoid it on that reason alone.
But that's not the big one.
In a bid to have full occupancy you have to line up early for daily intake. That means you don't have time to get across town for a job interview, for food, for drugs (if you need them, no judge), for safety, etc.
So you line up early hoping to get in, essentially gambling you'll get a spot. If you don't you missed food, the good camping spots, etc. If you do get in you're often only allowed a bag and have to abandon any other stuff you've collected.
These places need to be set up with safe isolated storage and some sort of expedited intake methods.
But then these places aren't even safe, often folks feel safer camped out in the shadows than in a facility.
Shits fucked
Death_Equity -6 points 3 years ago
Some homeless people chose the streets because they want the freedom. They don't want to participate in the rules of the system society provides to help them. They don't want to live in the system, and that is their choice. Choices have consequences, but society should not be expected to tolerate their uncivilized behavior if they chose not to participate.
Clent 2 points 3 years ago
They don't want to be subject to the rules.
It is our choice as a society to give them no alternative
Their "uncivilized" behavior is us dealing with the consequences of expecting them to be treated like work release prisoners.
keeb420 -6 points 3 years ago
eah. im not in the san fran area, seattle, but i had a coworker who was homeless and yet they wouldnt be flexible enough to allow him to come in late from his job to get into the shelter. and it was my coworkers fault they were homeless, he let people stay with him that werent on his lease and didnt have money for get into a new place yet.
RegularGoose 13 points 3 years ago
Why is inhumane in scare quotes? Do you believe that the state abusing mentally ill people who often can't even care for themselves is a reasonable course of action?
Death_Equity 0 points 3 years ago
Relocation of homeless people to a more favorable economic area is "inhumane".
Rocketpoweredgorilla 11 points 3 years ago
So your answer is to do nothing to help them? 100k can still feed a lot of people that otherwise would have gone hungry.
Edit: "An important reason why San Francisco policies continue to fail is that there is little or no accountability within the city’s government to evaluate the efficacy of its spending. Some of the city’s programs are so poorly managed that some homeless people likely prefer living on the streets to the facilities that are being provided to them at enormously inflated costs to taxpayers." https://www.hoover.org/...
Sounds like the problem isn't the homeless, it's the people taking advantage of the system.
Death_Equity 1 point 3 years ago
The problem with every form of social welfare is abuse of that system, from those who administrate and those who abuse. The most vulnerable are the victims and are made into the villains of a broken and unfixable system due to the character and moral faults of others.
HonoraryMancunian 4 points 3 years ago
too favorable to homelessness
Mate
Death_Equity 2 points 3 years ago
The weather and general acceptance/generosity facilitates homelessness.
RememberTheApollo_ 4 points 3 years ago
$57-70k
Source?
Dark_Arc 8 points 3 years ago
Here's a source that disagrees
RememberTheApollo_ 6 points 3 years ago
Thank you for the information.
So a big chunk of the bad math done by people who never read the article is attributing money intended to prevent homelessness to being spent generically on the homeless. They see one number, divide by the other, and presto…outrage.
Death_Equity 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 2869692 2870230 2872249 2876768, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
TokenBoomer -6 points 3 years ago
So you don’t seem insensitive in the future, they prefer to be called the “housing challenged” now.
Death_Equity 1 point 3 years ago
A rose by any other name.
Fuck feelings and flowery names to assuage the feelings of the advantaged, I want results instead of a new coat of paint.
TokenBoomer 0 points 3 years ago
Someone once told me it was the material conditions of society that cause poverty and homelessness. But he was drunk a lot and lived with his friend, so he probably didn’t know what he was talking about.
AndyLikesCandy 50 points 3 years ago
They could have just voted Republican if they were just going to oppose the same policies they voted for...
TokenBoomer 19 points 3 years ago
But that entitlement wouldn’t allow them the privilege of feeling superior.
PowerCrazy 7 points 3 years ago
Whats the difference in a one party free-market state?
DessertStorms 28 points 3 years ago
Fucking NIMBYs
mr_washee_washee 18 points 3 years ago
they are pro birth for free labor, but also anti homeless. those pesky rich! rules for thee, but not for me
RegularGoose 12 points 3 years ago
I guarantee you that if they were asked, more than half of these people would support rounding up the homeless and putting them in forced labor camps to "contrubute to society."
mr_washee_washee 6 points 3 years ago
making bills allowing 10 year olds to work is one step in that direction.
land of the fee!
Tolstoshev 3 points 3 years ago
They want to exploit the sheep, not take care of them. To them, these are the duds and they’d rather let them die than waste money taking care of people who will never again be productive to society. There’s plenty more functional sheep to go after.
mr_washee_washee 1 point 3 years ago
tbh i blame parents too for bringing up children without ensuring some sort of financial security for them before they are even born, also doesn't help that abortion is getting less accessible (rich people knew which laws to tap): somone's child could be sentenced to eternal homeless and poverty if his parent didn't pull out fast enough.. what a life
TokenBoomer -70 points 3 years ago
This is what America looks like under Tankie rule. The tankies want to make everyone homeless. Their ideology dictates it. When everyone is homeless, no one is. This could never happen in a liberal America. We wouldn’t allow things like homelessness and poverty.
Deceptichum 35 points 3 years ago
Imagine thinking tankies are leftists.
Go simp for authoritarianism elsewhere.
TokenBoomer -15 points 3 years ago
Think again Commie. Imagine thinking liberals are conservatives. You’re not putting me against a wall, unless it’s to keep out the homeless.
epicsninja 13 points 3 years ago
I don't think a Token Boomer would actually call anyone a "Tankie", it's a pretty newfangled term. They'd probably use "Commie" instead.
DessertStorms 6 points 3 years ago
it’s a pretty newfangled term
lol
The term "tankie" was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defense of the Soviet use of tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring uprising, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.[7][8]
Raise_a_glass 5 points 3 years ago
It may be an older term, but I’ve only started seeing it once I switched from Reddit. And I’ve never heard it outside of this website. I’m in my mid-40s as a frame of reference.
And I fully believe I could also have been living in a bubble, but I doubt I’m alone.
DessertStorms 3 points 3 years ago
That's cool, not being aware of something is just life - no one knows everything, but that doesn't mean that the thing only started to exist once we found out about it.
(genuinely not trying to be a dick, I just found your choice of words a little silly that's all)
TokenBoomer 0 points 3 years ago
That’s the history. But tankies today love red fashion. Wearing their sexy ushankas and such. They also are authoroties. They read books and theory and think that’s wear you get knowledge.
there1snospoon 13 points 3 years ago
Sees username.
Almost got me, boomer.
wintermute_oregon 6 points 3 years ago path: 0 2869193 2870988, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 20
Franzia 4 points 3 years ago
The wealthy have an unbelievable amount of power in San Fran. They may have the aesthetics of liberalism, but in local politics using zoning laws and lawyers to limit the amount of poor people who can live near them? That's conservative in nature.
TokenBoomer 4 points 3 years ago
Are you saying liberals may not know they actually have conservative ideologies?
wanderingmagus 2 points 3 years ago
Unironically yes.
wintermute_oregon 2 points 3 years ago path: 0 2869193 2870988 2872260 2872821, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
TokenBoomer -3 points 3 years ago
Spoken like a true tankie.
wintermute_oregon 2 points 3 years ago path: 0 2869193 2870988 2871685 2872895, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 7
TokenBoomer 1 point 3 years ago
I know right. Sociallist always vote for their own interests, when they should be thinking about how their votes affect other people. It’s hipocracy.
TokenBoomer 3 points 3 years ago
Nice try Trotsky, that’s Detroit. I watched “Good Times “ growing up.
sucricdrawkcab 1 point 3 years ago
Oh yeah indeed it is
TokenBoomer 0 points 3 years ago
Glad you noticed
TokenBoomer 1 point 3 years ago
No
Uranium3006 2 points 3 years ago
What?
TokenBoomer 0 points 3 years ago
If I get to 69 downvotes I’ll tell you.
CarbonIceDragon 2 points 3 years ago
I don't like Tankies for the whole authoritarianism bit, but if the Soviets were any indication, making everyone homeless is not one of their aims. My understanding is that they did attempt to solve it, partly through building those somewhat infamous grey apartment towers they're known for, and partly by just making it illegal to not have a registered place of residence, which while certainly authoritarian, is also the exact opposite of what you would do if you wanted to force people to be homeless.
TokenBoomer 0 points 3 years ago
So you’re saying this is actually liberals perpetuating homelessness? I thought we liked them.
captainlezbian 1 point 3 years ago path: 0 2869193 2869870, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
Those rich bastards may have raised 60k, but the city still is fighting and the proles have raised 30k to counter the anti-shelter fundraiser, according to the article. It's not over yet and the city may still get the desperately needed shelter.
save