I mean a subway station isn’t a homeless shelter and homeless people are unfortunately very often mentally ill or addicted, which can create danger for commuters.
Getting rid of benches doesn’t get rid of the homeless. They’ll still be homeless with no where else to go without them. It just makes things worse for everyone.
Not just housing, but mental health services for everyone.
I would say we can probably link something like 80% of the bullshit going on in modern society to widespread mental health issues. Definitely a large part is constantly electing obvious sociopaths to political offices. And allowing psychopaths that obviously lack empathy entirely to run corporations and employ large parts of the populace while missing a fundamental part of what many would consider their humanity.
A big driver of mental health issues are economic pressures. When you have to work long hours for shit pay, it does a number on you. Addiction rates increase with poverty, and our current economy is stressful for all but the richest and most fortunate. Even high earners have to work themselves to the bone for their position, and their lack of work/life balance drives them to isolation.
So it all comes back to capitalism. Solving economic inequities is a prerequisite to addressing almost all of our problems.
The entire system in the US is made to keep as many people as possible teetering at the brink of absolute poverty and scared shitless from that happening (since what follows that is mostly homelessness or prison, both dealth with in the most inhumane way imaginable), since that makes it much easier to exploit those people to the max.
The point of the Social Safety Net was to stop that, but whatever little of it ever existed has been torn down in the US (and is even being torn down in other countries as mainstream politicians there have aped American “liberal” politics)
All the right wingers are hard at doing so, as are the “center”-“left” mainstream parties though in a more dilluted way - essentially the conquests of the post-War period are being destroyed, same as in the US but starting from a higher basedline in Europe so there’s more to destroy before reaching the bottom.
Shit, even the “fringe” “left” has a large subset of parties led by people whole detached from any single global and consist ideology (such as the older ones like Socialism, Social Democracy or Anarchy) who grew up only ever knowing Neoliberalism and thus whose idea of being “left” is the Neoliberal “moral liberalism” (mostly commonly known as Identity Politics) that very explicitly excludes the greatest, most widespread and most suffering causing inequality of all - Wealth Inequality - which is probably why the Far-Right is gaining massivelly from the fall of the mainstream parties than those “left” parties, since even the Far-Right lies are more appealing to the Working Class than the upper middle class well-off scion of well-off parent’s idea of “equality” that these parties defend.
(I was actually a member of such a “fringe” “left” party for a few years and was thoroughly dissapointed)
No, I was being a bit facetious in my response to the comment that the solution is housing the homeless, not making things less hospitable. It’s of course not within the Subway’s powers to actually solve homelessness so giving them flack for picking the less worse option with their limited options instead of magically solving the root of the problem is silly.
Get mad at the people who are actually responsible for dealing with the root cause, not the ones needing to make tough choices dealing with the reality of it.
The subway should be suitable for disabled people to use. If that makes the subway a home for the homeless, that isn’t the fault of the choice to make the subway suitable for disabled people.
Homeless people will find some place to stay. If you make places more unpleasant until homeless people find somewhere else to stay, and then you make that place unpleasant until they move away from there, etc., then all you’re doing is spending massive amounts of money to make the entire city unpleasant and still end up with homeless people in the least unpleasant spots.
I agree with you almost completely. The issue is if the homeless prevents the space from being suitable for disabled people or other commuters, then this is the “less worse” option from the subway’s perspective. The subway is focused on creating a safe and clean commuter environment; it’s not within their power to solve homelessness so they have little choice but to make everything a bit worse for everyone to stop the problem they’re dealing with from making it even worse yet for everyone.
the subway’s perspective. The subway is focused on creating a safe and clean commuter environment
Well there’s your problem. Your subway organisation is myopically focused on making its own little corner as “well-functioning” as possible even at the cost of the rest of the city. It ignores the social harm it causes to whatever the next place is that homeless people decide to congregate instead (and the additional harm it causes to homeless people by forcing them to stay in less hospitable locations, and the additional harm it causes everyone in those homeless people’s vicinity because they are more desperate on account of staying in less hospitable environments and thus more likely to resort to crime).
If the alternative is nothing then I guess yeah. I’d rather they get the subway as shelter until a proper solution is in place than them being condemned to die.
i think that the millions of vacant homes should house the homeless, but since thats seemingly impossible then sure I’d rather they keep the benches for the homeless to lay on than this
Definitely agreed, but the subway station is for the commuters, not for solving the housing issue. It shouldn’t be that commuters are having a less safe commute because the city, state, whatever isn’t willing to deal with the housing/homeless issue.
I mean removing the benches is a poor solution to that anyway. Should keep the benches but just make sure the station is actually serving the commuters
Sorry you got downvoted for speaking the truth. I bet every one of these virtue signaling commenters also distance themselves when they come across a bum on a bench.
I mean a subway station isn’t a homeless shelter and homeless people are unfortunately very often mentally ill or addicted, which can create danger for commuters.
Shit situation though
why are they addicted???
who sold them the thing they are addicted to???
🪿
Alcohol is sold in most stores from what I know. If drugs, I dunno, drug dealers?
Pharmaceutical companies and Alcohol Brands are both run by the 🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁 bourgeoise 🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁
you think drug dealers give out free samples?
it usually starts with a prescription
Do you mean like owned by? Because the actual people running those places are just regular clerks and shit
Some do yeah. Often the dealer isn’t some random guy but a person you know or even a friend of yours. They might give you a hit
They do fent or alcohol prescriptions 👀
Not sure what this has to do with the subway benches though
owned by
SOME
And yes, fentanyl is used A LOT in medical care and so are multiple other addictive substances such as morphine and other addictive painkillers
the homeless are homeless because of the system
the best we could do is house them
Right but it’s not the transit system’s job. Of course they don’t want to make commuting worse for all of those non-homeless people using it
how would people having a place to sleep make commuting worse?
Getting rid of benches doesn’t get rid of the homeless. They’ll still be homeless with no where else to go without them. It just makes things worse for everyone.
I mean for the transit authority it’s one tool, but I agree it’s not the best one. Preferably keep the benches but hire more security people.
the solution should be housing the homeless not making everyone’s lives more miserable
Not just housing, but mental health services for everyone.
I would say we can probably link something like 80% of the bullshit going on in modern society to widespread mental health issues. Definitely a large part is constantly electing obvious sociopaths to political offices. And allowing psychopaths that obviously lack empathy entirely to run corporations and employ large parts of the populace while missing a fundamental part of what many would consider their humanity.
A big driver of mental health issues are economic pressures. When you have to work long hours for shit pay, it does a number on you. Addiction rates increase with poverty, and our current economy is stressful for all but the richest and most fortunate. Even high earners have to work themselves to the bone for their position, and their lack of work/life balance drives them to isolation.
So it all comes back to capitalism. Solving economic inequities is a prerequisite to addressing almost all of our problems.
The entire system in the US is made to keep as many people as possible teetering at the brink of absolute poverty and scared shitless from that happening (since what follows that is mostly homelessness or prison, both dealth with in the most inhumane way imaginable), since that makes it much easier to exploit those people to the max.
The point of the Social Safety Net was to stop that, but whatever little of it ever existed has been torn down in the US (and is even being torn down in other countries as mainstream politicians there have aped American “liberal” politics)
Everyone everywhere should be terrified of their country emulating the US
All the right wingers are hard at doing so, as are the “center”-“left” mainstream parties though in a more dilluted way - essentially the conquests of the post-War period are being destroyed, same as in the US but starting from a higher basedline in Europe so there’s more to destroy before reaching the bottom.
Shit, even the “fringe” “left” has a large subset of parties led by people whole detached from any single global and consist ideology (such as the older ones like Socialism, Social Democracy or Anarchy) who grew up only ever knowing Neoliberalism and thus whose idea of being “left” is the Neoliberal “moral liberalism” (mostly commonly known as Identity Politics) that very explicitly excludes the greatest, most widespread and most suffering causing inequality of all - Wealth Inequality - which is probably why the Far-Right is gaining massivelly from the fall of the mainstream parties than those “left” parties, since even the Far-Right lies are more appealing to the Working Class than the upper middle class well-off scion of well-off parent’s idea of “equality” that these parties defend.
(I was actually a member of such a “fringe” “left” party for a few years and was thoroughly dissapointed)
And yeah, I’m terrified.
There also should be a diagnosis for money and power hoarding, common in billionnaires and CEOs.
megalomania?
You think the subway should house the homeless?
yes :)
You think offering benches to sit on qualifies as housing the homeless?
No, I was being a bit facetious in my response to the comment that the solution is housing the homeless, not making things less hospitable. It’s of course not within the Subway’s powers to actually solve homelessness so giving them flack for picking the less worse option with their limited options instead of magically solving the root of the problem is silly.
Get mad at the people who are actually responsible for dealing with the root cause, not the ones needing to make tough choices dealing with the reality of it.
The subway should be suitable for disabled people to use. If that makes the subway a home for the homeless, that isn’t the fault of the choice to make the subway suitable for disabled people.
Homeless people will find some place to stay. If you make places more unpleasant until homeless people find somewhere else to stay, and then you make that place unpleasant until they move away from there, etc., then all you’re doing is spending massive amounts of money to make the entire city unpleasant and still end up with homeless people in the least unpleasant spots.
I agree with you almost completely. The issue is if the homeless prevents the space from being suitable for disabled people or other commuters, then this is the “less worse” option from the subway’s perspective. The subway is focused on creating a safe and clean commuter environment; it’s not within their power to solve homelessness so they have little choice but to make everything a bit worse for everyone to stop the problem they’re dealing with from making it even worse yet for everyone.
Well there’s your problem. Your subway organisation is myopically focused on making its own little corner as “well-functioning” as possible even at the cost of the rest of the city. It ignores the social harm it causes to whatever the next place is that homeless people decide to congregate instead (and the additional harm it causes to homeless people by forcing them to stay in less hospitable locations, and the additional harm it causes everyone in those homeless people’s vicinity because they are more desperate on account of staying in less hospitable environments and thus more likely to resort to crime).
If the alternative is nothing then I guess yeah. I’d rather they get the subway as shelter until a proper solution is in place than them being condemned to die.
i think that the millions of vacant homes should house the homeless, but since thats seemingly impossible then sure I’d rather they keep the benches for the homeless to lay on than this
Definitely agreed, but the subway station is for the commuters, not for solving the housing issue. It shouldn’t be that commuters are having a less safe commute because the city, state, whatever isn’t willing to deal with the housing/homeless issue.
I mean removing the benches is a poor solution to that anyway. Should keep the benches but just make sure the station is actually serving the commuters
Sorry you got downvoted for speaking the truth. I bet every one of these virtue signaling commenters also distance themselves when they come across a bum on a bench.
wheres my money
you lost the bet