People work to improve their material conditions. Material conditions drive society, after all. Do you do household chores at all, or do you let everyone else do them for you?
Communal ownership of property is the only way to truly aim at fulfilling needs and desires, rather than the profit motive.
This argument is always brought up when it comes to universal basic income or free housing. It was disproven every time it was tested, but people still believe that everyone else will just stop working if they weren’t punished for being alive anymore.
Do you recognize that these sorts of initiatives can have long term affects that are not accurately understood in a small sample sized study over a short period of time?
You said it was disproven, how can something be disproved if you only tested it during a really short time period? Maybe you meant to say “evidence suggests” but that’s much different than something being disproven
In the bottom left it shows the current year in the Aztec calendar, presumably cut off and the “current year” in the Gregorian calendar at 2015 AD. I’m 95% sure this is just some guy’s alt history map, especially considering how many wack ass names some of these places have
It’s definitely an alternate history map, and I hope it’s an accurate potential map of an uncolonized North America if it’s cultures grew to nation state sizes.
I’m European so I’m not meaning to offend, but there’s something very interesting to me try to visualise how America could have grown without colonisation, and perhaps this is through my European lense but I’d imagine borders would move and groups would swallow eachother up. The scale of countries on this map is pretty comparable to what we see in Europe and Asia, but I don’t know enough about America to know if this is respectful to the placement and potential of Native American groups (e.g I think I’ve read before the the Comanche are a successful seperation from the Shoshone that was largely due to their expansion due to horses, which would have happened very differently sans colonisation), and I’m not even sure if this map follows natural borders like mountains and rivers, largely because I’m just not that familiar with America.
this map is complete nonsense because some of these groups only exist as a result of interactions with europeans, and even some of the other ones are from completely different places before europeans came in.
The Aztec empire being the dominant force on the continent could be a very unfortunate situation for everyone living there.
They were so unpopular with every surrounding nation (because of all the murdering and kidnapping and human sacrificing) that when the Spanish showed up, the vast vast majority of the soldiers that fought against the Aztecs were from the local peoples.
Don’t do this. If someone makes it clear they’re not OK with something and you immediately do it, that’s rapist shit.
It creates a culture where people feel hesitant to call stuff out because of the fear they’ll get immediately bullied for it.
EDIT: 42 downvotes YIKES rape culture is out of control!! Maybe I need to look into deanonymizing votes so I can clear house, because that is beyond unacceptable.
I can 100% understand where you’re coming from. It’s okay if you don’t feel comfortable with this kind of humor.
I’m not going to touch on what topics or humor are appropriate in what places, that’s a big conversation with very few black and white answers. Please just keep in mind that some of us use dark humor as a way of coping, of reducing the emotional strain by making light of our trauma in a safe way, or by using humor to generate empathy in others who might not have experienced the same trauma. Humor doesn’t have to tear things down, it can bring people together. I also don’t want to touch on the “rapist shit” comment, so… I won’t.
To anyone else reading, please try to be a bit more understanding when people politely ask you to chill. It’s usually not their business, especially in public, but please don’t immediately get defensive. I have the right to walk down the street screaming at people, as an extreme example, but no one would defend me if I was doing that and someone else asked me to stop. Most people are automatically aware of unwritten social norms and stuff, this is just part of that compromise we work with every day. Sometimes, you should ignore the person asking you to tone it down. Sometimes, you should tone it down.
I usually don’t subscribe to the “everyone is right” BS, but I think it’s true here. There’s no bad person in this, just a difference of how people process things.
I’m just now catching up on this thread. I honestly don’t understand what you’re talking about. Nazis are bad. War criminals are bad. Sexual assault is bad, and perpetrators are 100% in the wrong, now and forever. Some things are very clear, and some things are nuanced. That’s just life.
Morality isn’t a free-for-all, and I don’t think anything I said would have suggested otherwise.
The reason nuance is important, is because we get actually get Nazis and shit if we make everything an absolute. I’m not advocating for anything goes, I’m saying that some things are complicated and simple answers don’t always work. How people use humor is one of those things that can be complicated. I know dark humor definitely helps me cope with and overcome my trauma when I’m in a dark place. It also helps me bond a little bit when I meet someone else will so uses dark humor. It’s okay if that’s not the same for you. People are different.
I’m not angry or trying to be mean or talk down or anything like that. I also don’t automatically think you’re a bad person, even though I feel like that insult was uncalled for. And I know some of the other people browsing here were kind of assholes, so, I’m sorry about them.
Anyway we don’t need to continue talking about this if you don’t want to. The entire thing is kind of stressful for me, so I might not check my messages for a few days anyway. If you do want to talk more, I’m open to that. But if you’re just going to be rude, I’ll probably not respond.
Heh, you can tell that you’re trying to talk with a reasonable person when the response to your fairly diplomatic comment was to compare you to pedophiles defending Nazi war criminals.
But in any case, I do agree with you that I absolutely could have handled the original response much better by not being an outright smartass twat, but I’m honestly not too sure the outcome would have been any better considering this frankly incredible tantrum going on about rape culture being out of control and calling people who are trying to defuse the situation pedophiles.
I was having a bit of a crummy day and felt like being snarky, but this… whatever this is that’s going on is just something else entirely.
I did specifically say that yes, being a snarky asshole was stupid of me and I could have not been one in my initial answer. So, yes, I was an asshole and that’s not something I or anybody else should be doing. That’s not defensiveness, that’s me saying I screwed up.
But can you honestly tell me that you think it’s sensible behavior from this other person to compare a completely random onlooker who’s trying to defuse this scene to a pedophile defending Nazi war criminals? Like, does that strike you as a good way for someone to handle it when there’s a conflict and someone from the outside tries to be diplomatic and calm things down?
I also really don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish with these replies. Just popping up replying to my comments with petty insults doesn’t seem to paint you in a light that’s any better than my initial twattery towards the original commenter. If you want to actually say something, take a moment and formulate your thoughts? Because this… whatever it is you’re doing really isn’t any better than my original snark, so if you agree with the original commenter than I should have done better (and frankly I agree with them on that point at least), maybe don’t take your turn at being an antagonistic asshole just because you feel like venting – the way I did?
Right, and is being on mobile a good reason for you to keep this snark going? It seems like you’d rather just choose to be pissed at me or something and continue this ribbing instead of, well, any other option.
If you think that being an asshole is generally not a good thing and that I was wrong to do it, why do you figure you’re justified in acting like this?
But can you honestly tell me that you think it’s sensible behavior from this other person to compare a completely random onlooker who’s trying to defuse this scene to a pedophile defending Nazi war criminals?
I’ve resigned myself to the fact that there’s just s lot of places on lemmy where “dark humor” and CSAM reign supreme, can’t say I blame others for having a stronger response.
I just now came back to this thread and started reading. I was avoiding it, because honestly it was intimidating when I suddenly had a bunch of replies about something I knew might be controversial.
I don’t know what you’re talking about with Nazis and shit, but I guess I’m about to find out…
You don’t get to control the speech of everyone around you just because you personally have a problem with something. You can ask politely, but your control over other people starts and ends there.
Skipped straight to the “you’re a rapist for making this joke”, huh?
Maybe you can just like block me and move on with your life? It’s not like I’m going to remove this meme just because you think it’s making fun of trauma, and you’re not going to get me to repent my evil ways either. Or do you want to lecture me some more, maybe call me a rapist again?
I didn't read that as "you are a rapist", I read that as "this is the same kind of non-empathetic and hostileness that rapists display" and implied "do better"
So I get why you feel attacked but it's a legit criticism
Not sure that’s much better. Did I handle that tactfully? No. Is that grounds for comparing me to a rapist? Also no.
I just really don’t have much patience with people who assume that it’s everybody’s responsibility to shield them from things they somehow find either offensive, traumatizing, or making fun of their trauma. While I’m not unsympathetic to trauma or completely unwilling to accommodate it at all, if we clean the meme community of everything that someone finds somehow either offensive or triggering, there won’t be much left here – considering how much you have to reach to say this meme is somehow grievously making fun of trauma or even related to trauma, the bar for removing “offensive” content isn’t going to be high.
So, tl;dr, just about anything can be offensive or triggering to someone, so where on earth do we draw the line? Again, I’m not unsympathetic, but is it not a bit ridiculous to come barging in with the apparent assumption that something as inoffensive as this meme be either removed or that they get some sort of apology for it or whatever their end goal was in their mind?
Edit: just to drive the point home because I’m irritated, but despite what could be assumed based on my twattery in some comments, I’m a fairly sensitive person. There’s a bunch of subjects that I’m very sensitive about, but I’m not going to go around telling people that their post about $SUBJECT_MATTER is offensive to me; my sensitivities aren’t anybody else’s problem, they’re my problem (well, mine and my therapist’s). And this doesn’t mean I’d eg. shut up about seeing blatant racism or whatever, but things I figure aren’t going to be more widely offensive or “touchy”.
While I’m not unsympathetic to trauma or completely unwilling to accommodate it at all, if we clean the meme community of everything that someone finds somehow either offensive or triggering, there won’t be much left here
So, tl;dr, just about anything can be offensive or triggering to someone, so where on earth do we draw the line?
I didn’t find the post to be particularly funny, nor triggering, but the responses to someone complaining by doubling down on the exact thing they just complained about is very telling about the culture you’re cultivating on beehaw.
If you had read carefully the beehaw.org TOS, you’d know there’s a fine-print clause that nominates you, personally, as the ambassador of all of its communities; everyone else is contractually obligated to upvote comments on your posts where you make fun of… uh, people who have had sex education or poor English speechcraft idk.
Wanna go check out my profile page, leave a sulky reply on a few more comments? Insulting the quality of my memes was a terrific idea, but maybe you could team up with the original offendee who’s now convinced that this post is an indication of rape culture being out of control, and see what sort of absolutely devastating insults you can come up with? Could call me a fascist for example, that’d be pretty bad?
The First Peoples of North America definitely didn’t have such sharp, well defined border lines. It’s not as of they had a bunch of written treaties establishing hard borders.
This is a conceptual alternate history map of modern day North America without colonisation. It’s still reasonably inaccurate of course but it’s not meant to accurately portray the borders of a pre-colonised North America.
The Wikipedia says it comes from a French misspelling of an indigenous word that could be used to describe the people. So it might be a little less offensive than that, but still not great.
In English we use Norse meaning northern people, unsurprisingly it is the word originally used to describe them by people south of them. Those people now called Germans get their name from ceaser when he invaded from Italy, named by the Greeks, who in turn derive their modern name from the Romans because they called themselves Hellanes… Spain gets it’s name probably because it was located near a rabbit on a Roman coin… They also named Britain of course and all of them would be the ones going to the new world and naming things there
If they’d endured as independent groups into the 21st century without being colonised by Europeans, as the map shows, they would almost certainly have developed defined borders.
Why? Europe had firm (occasionally changing) boarders for centuries before the sixteenth century, do you think they were simply behind on an inevitable development or that contact with the rest of the world would necessitate their development?
I think it’s interesting to try and imagine situations where firm boarders aren’t established. In such a situation it’s interesting to consider what rules could or would exist regarding immigration and outsider communities.
I understand this building in downtown Vancouver probably had issues with people sleeping here, but placing a bunch of concrete filled pylons is fucked up.
yeah, but i just dont really understand the map. is it just a map showing where the native population lived before colonization or is there an actual joke in there?
Is this one of those “this is uncomfortably political to me and I don’t like that like that, therefore it isn’t a wholesome chungus 100 maymay” things? grillman
Most homeless i have ever talked to dont want this. They want no strings attached crack homes not crack houses. If you even so talk about how shitty a lot of these people are you get pounded down with how awful of a person you are and blahblah. I have worked with and have been in clise contact with a lot of homeless and much of the time they are disgusting people inside and outside.
Wow, you are an awful person, lmao. You require people to remain in destitution because you anecdotally dealt with rude people? Perhaps they were rude because you’re an awful person?
I dont require anyone to be in anything. I was simply giving my opinion. From my experience a lot of homeless prefer to stay homeless because they like that lifestyle. At the same time, we have people like you who want to shower them with things they dont want.
I want to decommidify housing, as there’s no need for that. You want people on the streets, and are making up lies to justify your hatred for poor people.
I have heard of homeless people reject wanting to live in housing because they had rules like no meth or curfew. Ask yourself why do homeless shelters run under capacity when there are still people on the street. Why is it that homeless populations are increasing but the percentage of people in shelters is decreasing?link to info on homeless
The honest truth is there are a lot of families and people who are down on their luck and my heart goes to these people. I also know there are a lot of addicts who dont give a flying fuck.
I dont think housing being a commodity has anything to do with this problem more than scarcity of homeless shelters. But if you made it easier to own a home for the unfortunate, we will likely see the same outcomes. Other countries like Britain or France have decommodified housing and they still have a sizable homeless population.
If you give the individuals who reject rules a luxury of owning a home, the only thing being solved is the eye sore by having certain people moved out of public view. The rest frankly just like being in the environment.
Does your housing have curfews enforced upon you? Does it require you to get rid of all of your possessions? Are you kicked out of it due to preexisting conditions? I am assuming not and I would guess that you would reject such housing as well. They are rejecting being treated as lesser human beings.
why do homeless people care about curfews they don’t have any pressing matters they need to deal with past 9pm other than scoring drugs and committing crimes. nothing good happens past 9pm
Idk, thats their business, that is the point. Also if we wanted to treat drug abuse seriously, there would be medical facilities to provide drugs legally so that they can receive proper treatment, reducing the black market sales and most likely drug related crime
I disagree that giving drug addicts a free and unlimited supply of drugs is the best way to fight drug addiction. Treatment (with forced holds) I’m a proponent of.
Well, a lot of them have shitty jobs too. Like when I worked at a grocery store, evening crew would be there until 11pm. So I guess they would just get fucked then. There are a lot of working homeless.
Not at most shelters in high pop zones like mine. They fill up and won’t leave a bed vacant. There’s also no ins and outs, and there’s usually a few people moaning or screaming. Some asshole is usually wandering around looking at everyone’s stuff, and you are limited on the amount of possessions you are allowed to bring in with you (Which totally makes sense but still sucks to have to leave anything large you may have somewhere out of eyesight). It’s a hellscape. I’m honestly amazed they fill up with how shitty they are to get any sleep in.
Uh, they’re poor and probably rough hygenically, which means swing shift is their primary option. Your advice might as well be “be better!”. The point is that these aren’t all crackheads and crazy people. Also I don’t think late jobs are as uncommon as you think they are. I personally wish they had daytime shelters to better serve what I really believe to be the most rehabitable members of the homeless population.
When I worked nights, there were always multiple people who lived out of their cars working with me.
I mean we can just look at historical precedent. Back when the drug crisis started and Nixon decided to start the War on Drugs Switzerland took a completely different approach and started what they called care centers. Somewhere you could go to get heroin of high quality administered by doctors for free, you would also then get somewhere to sleep somewhere to shower and keep your things. Access to social workers and mental Care Professionals to help you get your life back on track.
They saw a 85% success rate within the first year. 85% of people that went into those facilities had a stable job on their own household of some variety within the first year and a follow-up study of how they were doing 5 years later showed that they had stayed employed and housed and not regressed.
But that would require people in the US to be willing to look at them as people and not just criminals who did it to themselves. These people are literally broken, you can’t treat their actions as you would a normal person because they are not mentally stable.
Well I don’t think we should judge all homeless people based solely off your close proximity to them.
Your position sort of assumes that anybody who disagrees with you only holds their beliefs because they themselves have never had your close proximity.
Downvote cuz youre over generalizing, maybe you get those type of people if youre working in a homeless camp with addicts, then youll encounter the people who have been down in their luck and when theyre addicted they dont see a way out.
People outside of the homeless camp could be completely different cause they havent reached the point of being an addict and homeless where they need that service.
memes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.