public housing is a part of the picture, and so are public libraries. The solution is certainly not to cut library spending just because there are homeless people using it
Thinking there being homeless people around is an issue that needs solving is itself pretty bigoted. Like, maybe you have a problem with people who haven’t showered for a while? or people who use the library for personal activities because there are no better places for them to do them? But ‘these people are a problem’ itself becomes problematic because you’ve consolidated those qualities you find objectionable into a class of person, and that makes it really easy to forget/misplace/dismiss the humanity those people deserve.
It’s a common attitude, so don’t feel like i’m picking you out personally to scold. More people should be aware of how that attitude dehumanizes people experiencing shelter insecurity.
There is no system under which nobody will be homeless, unless some people are kept inside by force. We can reduce homelessness, but if we don’t stop until there is ZERO then we will have gone far into the realm of cutting people’s rights down so much they can’t screw their own lives up.
I hate that this is true, but we don’t benefit from pretending (or legitimately believing) that it isn’t.
In order to have a world where people can determine their own destiny, ie in order to have a world with freedom, we must allow people to destroy themselves.
The system is badly rigged and unfair, but even the perfect system will still have some homeless people.
I don’t think the words “jerking off or doing drugs” were accidental in that comment. The request isn’t to ban homeless people from being in the library respectfully.
A rule like “no large backpacks” is bullshit, and anti-homeless. Backpacks aren’t a disruption to the library.
A rule like “no jerking off or doing drugs” is perfectly reasonable.
Yeah, you shouldn’t see homeless people. no one should!
(/s)
I mean, this but unironically? No one should be seeing homeless people because they shouldn’t be homeless.
But they do exist, something systematic must be changed for then not to exist. (Public housing, maybe?)
But until than, what?
There’s maybe two problems with this:
It’s a common attitude, so don’t feel like i’m picking you out personally to scold. More people should be aware of how that attitude dehumanizes people experiencing shelter insecurity.
deleted by creator
There is no system under which nobody will be homeless, unless some people are kept inside by force. We can reduce homelessness, but if we don’t stop until there is ZERO then we will have gone far into the realm of cutting people’s rights down so much they can’t screw their own lives up.
I hate that this is true, but we don’t benefit from pretending (or legitimately believing) that it isn’t.
In order to have a world where people can determine their own destiny, ie in order to have a world with freedom, we must allow people to destroy themselves.
The system is badly rigged and unfair, but even the perfect system will still have some homeless people.
There’s this
https://www.businessinsider.com/denver-basic-income-reduces-homelessness-food-insecurity-housing-ubi-gbi-2024-6
I don’t think the words “jerking off or doing drugs” were accidental in that comment. The request isn’t to ban homeless people from being in the library respectfully.
A rule like “no large backpacks” is bullshit, and anti-homeless. Backpacks aren’t a disruption to the library.
A rule like “no jerking off or doing drugs” is perfectly reasonable.