161–170 of 300 posts
He has a really lovely welsh accent.
The other thing to do is they did this largely because its what they felt was the right thing to do.
Since no one else is going to be cynical I will do it. This is a heartwarming story. However, it seems like that by taking this man in they got a live in maid along with an additional source of income. The fact that he is autistic and along with his disposition also probably made him feel “safe” to the husband around the women and girls in the house.
But reading between the lines, having someone with a gambling habit isn't the best live in "maid" especially if they work full time as a bin man.
I would just suggest that looking to believe the worst in people will not make you stronger or more effective than others, it'll just make you lonely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Non-neurotypicals can receive bad treatment from neurotypicals. But, it's also a trap to start thinking that neurotypicals are 100% intolerant. The corollary of not knowing when they're offending people, is that they also don't know when they're receiving tolerance - which is actually a lot; although it's understandable that this is not obvious.
I'm more cynical. I think most people really are intolerant. They have their culture which they perhaps unconsciously equate with being good or morally right and anyone who doesn't follow the complex unwritten rules is shunned or abused. Those rules may be mostly good but nobody questions them all, yet almost everybody either enforces them or tacitly tolerates their friends enforcing them. This is probably necessary…
[flagged]
For homeless people there is no requirement by the US government to house them. There are some grants to provide shelter, but no statutory tool that says "you must fix this"
So right there, the "government" has got out of the way. One could observe that if it was the government's fault, then the US should have a lower homelessness problem.
If we look at the international standings, the USA has a higher rate of "unsheltered" per 100k than say france or the UK.
So if its not the government, perhaps is that US citizens are just stingy fuckers who don't want to help?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when they closed down all the mental institutions. Why on earth did we do this? I look back at period pieces - films showcasing the 40s, 50s, etc., and it seems like mental institutions would be a wonderful way to house these folks and keep them fed and warm. I know there were abuses, but we have cameras now. And that's surely better than leaving them on the streets to freeze to death. I can't imagine it would cost…
If you take the average person who doesn’t have a mental illness and has no relationship with anyone who does, the system we have is pretty well optimized for their needs. We balance many difficult and inherently conflicting goals, such as: 1) minimizing treatment, which is expensive and does have bad side effects 2) sufficiently good access to treatment where it’s economical for prevention 3) fear of being wrongly h…
Reagan's destruction of the mental health system was really awful. The system needed improvement and more accountability, but we need it.
I had an adult step-brother too ill with schizophrenia to be cared for at home (he began making violent threats and stealing things, up to and including my mom's car), but under the current threshold for being compelled to take his medication. My mom (his step-mom; an attorney) spent years trying to find ways to get him help, but he bounced in and out of being homeless and ended up being murdered at about age 60 in a halfway house. Just a stupid, tragic waste of a life and all of the resources mis-allocated.
Sadly, it's just another example of how the US is penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to social services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without government interference, someone who is stronger/more brutal than you can kill you and take your property, partner, and anything else they like. It is in the top 10 in the world for homicides. Haiti is a horrifying place to live, for most people. The UN says that 85% of the capital is controlled by gangs, and they are spreading out into the rest of the country.
> Without government interference, someone who is stronger/more brutal than you can kill you and take your property, partner, and anything else they like. I cannot understand how people can idealize anarchy. It is as if they read some cool novel and believe that a world without functioning government is going to be something comfortable and safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A large percentage are there because society does not care for those with mental disabilities. This is why it's so frustrating to hear people smugly say we just need to build more houses to solve the homeless crisis.
Attributing 'smugness' is a way to duck the merits of the issue. People with mental disabilities also need a stable roof over their head, security, privacy, heat, a bathroom, a bed. I expect they need it more (very broadly speaking; people have very different disabilities do different degrees), because it's harder to adapt and survive without it, and therefore more traumatizing and destabilizing. There is plenty of e…
But it's only one piece of a very complex problem, it's akin to the magical thinking that is incredibly provision everywhere these days. "Just stop using seed oils and America will be healthy again!"
People who have personally dealt with this know the hard truth that simply providing food and shelter isn't enough to stop a significant portion of people ending up in the streets.
I'm not crying! You're crying!
[flagged]
Nordic countries have essentially eradicated homelessness by allowing the government to take an active interest in fixing the underlying issues that cause it. As a citizen, I don't want the burden of having to fix homelessness, that's what I pay taxes for.