Working class: “Can we have meaningful reform?” Conservatives: “No.” Liberals: "No 😘 🌈 "
I'm gonna mute this one
Submitted 5 weeks ago by SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com to [deleted]
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/cfd2134a-efca-4066-9473-6b2ba1fdc920.webp
Comments
salacious_coaster@infosec.pub 5 weeks ago
Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I’m frustrated with the reflexive “both sides are equally bad” response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what’s actually happening in our politics.
I’m not naive about the Democratic Party’s problems. They struggle with internal divisions, sometimes cave to corporate pressure, and they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base. But when I look at voting records, policy proposals, and legislative priorities, I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people’s lives.
On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers. The other party doesn’t just oppose these policies, they fight tooth and nail to undermine them, delay them, or dismantle them entirely. That’s not a matter of opinion. That’s a matter of public record.
When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion. Meanwhile, when Republicans have unified control, their priorities have been tax cuts for the wealthy and rolling back environmental protections.
I understand the appeal of cynicism. It can feel sophisticated to dismiss all politicians as equally corrupt. But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.
If you can’t tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you’re not offering insight. You’re providing cover for obstruction.
Does this mean Democrats are perfect? Of course not. Should we hold them accountable when they fall short? Absolutely. But pretending there are no meaningful differences between the parties just because neither is perfect makes it harder to build the coalitions we need to create the change we actually want to see.
salacious_coaster@infosec.pub 5 weeks ago
I agree with you that the parties are not the same. The GOP are outright evil puppets of the billionaire class. The Democrats are ineffectual cowards who’ve made careers out of paying lip service to the right thing, and every now and then doing something helpful if it’s convenient for them and doesn’t piss off their billionaire donors. A lot of the time that ends up translating to the same results for most people.
I don’t buy the “sorry, our hands are tied” line we always get from the left. Dems throw up their hands even when they do have majorities. The first meaningful opportunity the Democrats had to obstruct Trump’s agenda, after the left base had been screaming for weeks for their representatives to do something, Schumer rolled over immediately. I can’t take this party seriously anymore.
shads@lemy.lol 5 weeks ago
From my detached non American (but still a citizen of the planet so likely to get fucked hard by the way Americans vote) point of view, seems like Americans are continually letting perfect be the enemy of least bad. “Well since Democrats are kinda bad in these instances maybe we should just go fully fascist theological doom cult. That will force the Democrats to improve, or kill us all.”
Delphia@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Ive always put it in the very crude fashion of “They are both going to fuck us, but one of them spits on it and goes in gentle the other one wants us to struggle.”
Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 5 weeks ago
It’s called controlled opposition. The Democratic party has a lot of passionate, honest people, who want to make the world a better place. But they’re funded and directed at the highest levels of leadership by a group that secretly wants to make the world a worse place.
And the way they accomplish that is making sure the passionate honest people lose. Kamala Harris was bragging about drilling for oil and staying quiet about Gaza because either she or the people giving her advice wanted her to lose.
“Both sides bad” is the party’s intended messaging strategy. And it’s a lie. But it’s a lie people are falling for and repeating.
Wolf@lemmy.today 5 weeks ago
I’m frustrated with the reflexive “both sides are equally bad”
No one is saying both sides are equally bad. And we keep saying this over and over, and it gets ignored. Just so were on the same page NO ONE is saying both sides equally bad.
…response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what’s actually happening in our politics.
Ironically it’s usually the opposite. Someone will make the lightest possible criticism of Liberals and the knee-jerk reaction to that is “So you think both sides are equally bad?!” That’s what usually shuts the conversation down.
sometimes cave to corporate pressure
Try replacing sometimes with “usually”. They may be different corps, but almost all of them are in the pocket of one corp or another.
they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base
That’s putting it mildly.
I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people’s lives.
Of course, and again literally no one is saying they are equally bad. You can vote for the less bad option while still hoping for meaningful change.
On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers.
It’s usually weak, ineffective half-measures more designed to look progressive than actually being progressive, but sure if you compare them to literal Nazi’s they are saints.
When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion.
So, just as an example when Obama was president and Dems had the majority in both houses of congress, and Republicans were shitting all over themselves proving that they would not compromise a single inch- instead of passing any type of “Medicare for all” or “Right to Healthcare”, instead they passed the highly compromised “Affordable Care Act”. Why? Contrast that fact with this statement from Obama prior to the election.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program," Obama said. "I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we’ve got to take back the White House, we’ve got to take back the Senate, and we’ve got to take back the House.”
Odd that when the Dems had “taken back” the White House and both houses of Congress the best they could do was a watered down and problematic solution that still left a lot of people without health care. It’s not like compromising on that gained them a single Republican vote.
“Coincidentally” the Healthcare Industry ‘donated’ over $20 million to the Obama campaign, way more than even the almost $8 million they ‘donated’ to John McCain. Very odd indeed.
But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.
I honestly can’t think of a single institution anywhere in the world more devoted to maintaining the status quo than the DNC. Not one. They aren’t ‘progressive’ in any way. Obama didn’t even come out in support of Gay Marriage until he had been president for over 3 years, and after right wing Democrat Joe Biden already had. This wasn’t due to some sense of fairness or equality, it was political pressure.
If you can’t tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you’re not offering insight. You’re providing cover for obstruction
By refusing to even hear about potential failings of ‘liberal democrats’ without engaging in with ‘whataboutism’, it only strengthens the DNC’s position as the ‘good guys, fighting for reform’ when the reality is they are the ‘less bad guys, fighting to maintain the status quo’.
Fascists are bad. We all know they are bad. We all know they are worse than a bunch of corporate stooges who want everyone to be slaves to Capitalism, but at least you can feel good they are doing the bare minimum to address the multitudes of problems in the country.
There is a third option, and there is absolutely noting wrong with pointing out the flaws on both sides of the Two Party system and hoping for a future of ‘actually good’ instead of ‘less bad’. Even if it is just a dream, I’d rather waste my life trying to make those dreams real than throwing my arms up and saying “This is the best we can ever hope for”.
hansolo@lemmy.today 5 weeks ago
The more accurate form of the comment to which you’re reacting would be:
Can I have a free beer?
Conservatives: No
Liberals: Points to novelty sign on wall Free Beer Tomorrow winks “so you want a beer today? That’ll be $8.99”
The results aren’t exactly the same, but the gulf is not meaningful is the problem. Realistically, most people don’t actually like either party, they just dislike the other party more. If one day we had a 7 random parties just appear and Rs and Ds vanish, for a solid 20 years, political discourse would be verdant and nuanced in a way rarely seen in the US.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
shitty children petulantly whining they never get their way.
mind you, “their way” would alienate more than 60% of voters
no party is perfect, but they are wholly deluded and will lash out like spurned tweens denied their crocks. the know conservatives don’t give two flying fucks about them, so they have to lash out at dems / liberals / anyone not sufficiently ML to stand up to their purity tests.
it would be hilarious academically, but their bullshit does real world harm.
untorquer@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Correction,
liberals: “😘🌈 No”
Tja@programming.dev 5 weeks ago
Conservatives: "No. Kill the trans people and put gays in jail. Women belong in the kitchen. "
Liberals: "No 😘 🌈 "
Lemmy: both said no, so they’re the same!
Wolf@lemmy.today 5 weeks ago
I feel like this shouldn’t have to be explained, but “Both sides bad” does not equal “Both sides equally bad” or “Both sides the same”
There’s not a leftist on Lemmy who wouldn’t rather be patronized while being stomped on than being cussed at while being murdered.
And yes, I voted. No, it didn’t help. It was moderates who didn’t vote, not leftists. Leftists believe in harm reduction while advocating for harm elimination- the two goals aren’t contradictory. Trump stole the election so it’s all pretty much moot anyway.
By focusing on the fact that Democrats version of bad is better than the Republican version of bad, it only helps to ensure that the Democrats are the best we can hope to achieve. There is nothing wrong in wanting actual good and instead of ‘least bad’.
deaf_fish@midwest.social 5 weeks ago
You’ve posted a good argument to a discussion that we are not currently having in this thread. You may need to take a little break from Lemmy.
treedazzle@lemmynsfw.com 5 weeks ago
Most of three Democrats in Congress are hardly liberal
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Leftist. Liberalism is a right wing ideology.
PunkRockSportsFan@fanaticus.social 5 weeks ago
Think of the kids.
But don’t do anything.
My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
“No kid should ever have to sleep on the streets, so we made it borderline impossible for them to physically do so. Hopefully their bootstraps figure out someplace they can sleep, because we sure as hell didn’t. You’re welcome.”
Tja@programming.dev 5 weeks ago
It’s more like “no kid should ever sleep on the streets so we provide them with shelter and support”, but that doesn’t make a good internet rant m
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Maybe the populous should have been more specific then
floo@retrolemmy.com 5 weeks ago
Holy shit! There’s a bunch of poor homeless kids that are starving!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
Yep. This is what happens when you bleeding heart assholes stop the school shooters, bullying-to-suicide, and ecumenical rape. The whole ecosystem gets out of whack.
This year, we couldn’t even find enough people to take all the hunting licenses.
bytesonbike@discuss.online 5 weeks ago
What?! Lemme get outraged and blame the parents, then post some Facebook comments about how outraged I am!
joyjoy@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
“No kit should ever be able to sleep on the streets”
burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
the thing about Democrats and ‘liberals’ is that its a broad coalition of ideologies and political groups competing for power and having to compromise. we all want to bring about our vision of society and help people, but small differences lead to huge schisms. also, monied interests have undue amounts of power over our institutions.
conservatives on the other hand are completely united by cruelty and adherence to rigid heirarchies (in spite of how dysfunctional they are), and basically the only issues they ever have in their own base is that something isn’t causing enough pain to people they hate.
i feel it is important to hold our representatives accountable, but saying things like both sides are exactly the same or complaining about liberals as if they are one cohesive entity has no value outside of pushing people away from politics. there are VERY specific people and groups that are making very bad decisions for Americans, like AIPAC or other big donors that simultaneously fund people like Andrew Cuomo and Donald Trump
ameancow@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Yah I love how places like Lemmy are packed to overflowing with “radical leftists” who scream murder at liberals and moderates and how broadly appealing progressive policies aren’t going far enough to address [issue X].
Guys, we’re getting literally murdered out there, figuratively and literally. If there was ever a time to start building larger coalitions, it’s now. No, you’re not getting everything you want. No, we’re not having a revolution, we don’t have the military. Yes, you will have to compromise. And if you hate that word because you think it means walking alongside someone you despise…
Tough shit.
Pick an issue, gather allies, overwhelm it, then repeat for the NEXT issue and realize nobody is coming, you may not see a better world in your lifetime, your immediate sense of resignation at this fact is manufactured. Get your shit together.
They’re winning because they don’t recoil in horror at the idea of working towards mid-way goals or making deals they find distasteful, that’s how they pushed the overton window off the fucking map.
wpb@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Big tent liberalism is exactly what got you the anti-union, pro-war, pro-fracking, anti-immigrant democratic party of today. Every single time someone argues for speaking to a broader base it’s used as an excuse to move further right. And it isn’t working. Please, for the love of god, learn from the past three election cycles.
areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
Who exactly are you going to form groups with? I am a bit lost on where you would even get started on something like that. Most groups I have seen advertised or have any success are extremists I wouldn’t want to be a part of. I don’t want to go back to being a Trotskyist just to have any meaningful impact. You berate neurodivergent and queer people specifically as not getting off their ass, yet those are the kinds of people in the ranks of these organisations. It’s not like your average person is going to go and join the Labour party either.
Not all situations are like America. Here in the UK the backsliding is happening with the traditionally left leaning party who got in power using after massive fuck ups by the conservatives. So the right wing lost hard, but the other party have moved towards them. So you can’t even say it’s an issue with the alt-right like America. Instead it’s actually an issue with the left wing party and left wing moderates. Voting for and allying with them has enabled this behavior. It has enabled them to go after transgender people specifically. Ironically the conservatives might have actually done better in this case, as they haven’t expressed issues with queer people in recent times to my knowledge.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
who here said both sides same?
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Its silly that you can see one of the unifying concept that holds the Republican coalition together, but liberal one.
The Democratic gerentocracy embodies the problems of the Democrats. Hell, there’s a significant portion of the Democratic party that are just conservatives now who are disproportionately represented in the leadership. But the thing that holds them together is maintaining power.
This means they don’t fight if they deem the fallout risk to be too high. They bend a knee in symbolic support and then through all the symbolism and say it was the young progressive who poison them.
Choosing not to fight, let’s them maintain power. Most of their fight is boxing out other voices from gaining power within their coalition. But when the shit hits the fan, and the Republicans have gained control, the Democrats cry uncle, blame the progressives, and turn to us and ask us, “Who else are you going to vote for?”
pinesolcario@lemy.lol 5 weeks ago
Both sides currently yell and scream at anyone that doesn’t agree with them unequivocally. I don’t agree with everything liberal, and a few conservative viewpoints I do agree with. But for the most part I consider myself to be a moderate.
But vocalizing that I disagree with how to do something and both sides will either call me a libtard or a MAGAt.
This is something both sides have an issue with. So stop saying both sides is wrong. Here is an example that disproves that statement completely.
All I want is a party by and for the people. Not billionaires. Done with idiocracy and insanity.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 5 weeks ago
Having this opinion in 2025. Amazing
Critical_Thinker@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
All I want is a party by and for the people Never going to happen.
Political parties are run by the wealthy elite, not “the people”
There’s nothing to allow for a candidate who is sincere but not connected to big money to succeed at anything but the most local of elections.
If someone were to win a bigger federal level election with word of mouth and no money, be sure that whatever social media platform that allowed their word to go out and grow was on their side and working in the shadows of their ‘formula’ that promotes some content over others.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
All I want is a party by and for the people.
Sounds like you’d be interested in Marxism then.
stankbucket@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
So it’s fine to paint one side with a single stroke but not the other. Got it
iridebikes@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Either make compromises with other progressives or continue to let conservatives enact their vision of society to our collective detriment. Those are the options.
Sarmyth@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
In this case, at least lately, it less a brush stroke and more of a high resolution camera.
Once you support extremists, the argument of nuance becomes almost irrelevant to the rest of their victims.
Quadhammer@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Like we can all agree plantyr or whatever the fuck it’s called needs to get dicked down YESTERDAY right?
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Ok, but the people at Covenant House aren’t the ones who decided to put the anti-homeless architecture in place.
andybytes@programming.dev 5 weeks ago
Most charities are just scams. And yeah they might do some good, but charity is a symptom of failure. We are byproduct of our environment.
Tedesche@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters where they might get help finding affordable housing, not to mention help for whatever issues they have going on in their lives. It’s meant to combat the problem of some homeless people choosing to avoid getting help and continue to bury themselves in drugs/alcohol and sleep on things like public benches, where they prevent other people from using them for their intended purpose.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting people to get the help they need and stop being an inconvenience for the rest of their community. Are you against homeless outreach programs too? Do you think people should just be allowed to set up shack wherever they please in public spaces? I’m not trying to pretend that the lack of affordable housing isn’t at the core of the problem, but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street, just to avoid social workers pressuring them to address their problems.
dgmib@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters
Umm no… anti-homeless architecture isn’t meant to encourage people to go to homeless shelters, it’s meant to make it inconvenient to be homeless where “rich people” might have to see and acknowledge you. Its goal is to make the problem easier to ignore not drive people to get help.
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street
How about we get there first and then you can hand wring about any of these supposed people who are left?
untorquer@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Shelters, even if there was enough space, can be dangerous for vulnerable people, do not allow pets, and rarely provide medium term housing or transitional opportunity.
Anti-homeless architecture simply attempts to push the houseless further away from urban centers, and consequently food kitchens, shelters, and other resources. This is deadly when extreme weather occurs or acute health problems arise.
It actively makes the city more dangerous to those most fucked by society.
As far as “wanting” to live on the street, this is a narrative made up to victim blame and deny empathy. It only needs one or two examples for the false narrative to be cast on the population writ large.
Kickforce@lemmy.wtf 5 weeks ago
That may be true in some cases but most of the time anti homeless street furniture is just made to get homeless people to not hang around that particular area.
Tiger666@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
Amazingly, you think because someone has a mental illness that they chose to live on the street.
You: “I’m sure if given the chance to have a place to live, an unhoused person would reject it”
They remove benches and rest stops/bus shelters to stop the unhoused from occupying them to the detriment of people using the service. And you see nothing wrong with that.
It’s very obvious to most why this is done.
But not you.
Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Saw a guy sleeping under a bench with a similar design as this one, checkmate.
iAvicenna@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
they probably put spikes on the ground after that
dbtng@eviltoast.org 5 weeks ago
There is so much going on in that image. Layer after layer. It made me kinda dizzy.
I knew the threads would be cha0s. I was hoping someone would comment about the image itself. And wow. Hell of a comment. :]Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Ty!
Texas_Hangover@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
An angle grinder would make short work of those “arm rests.”
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
This is why I keep tearing my pants at the bus stop.
jaschen306@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
I wouldn’t damage public property. You certainly can improve on it. A couple of weather treated 2x4s would raise the seat up, just high enough to clear the armrests. You wouldn’t draw attention to yourself while grinding, but instead it would look super clean and nobody would report it.
Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
i doubt they are welded, a wrench or pliers might do
maxxadrenaline@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
pros of sleeping on concrete: heat from underground. cons: mice
SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
Revisiting and damn I made a good call to turn off notifications.
My visionary foresight knows no limits
Agrivar@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Coward.
TachyonTele@piefed.social 5 weeks ago
Aww they put kid sized sleeping areas on the bench!
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Is that just a weird perspective, or is that bench just an inch or two off the ground?
LodeMike@lemmy.today 5 weeks ago
Perspective.
peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 5 weeks ago
We got a figure out a way to remove first past the post.
There are really at least 3 groups, not liberals and conservatives.
There are progressives, neoliberals, and fascists.
Progressives believe the government exists to help all people.
Neoliberals say people should not be descriminated against, but wealth segregation is fine
Fascists are, well, fascists.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
This post isn’t very region specific but I assume you’re talking about the USA.
Steps:
-
Vote DNC, Promote DNC, Volunteer DNC
-
DNC ammends constitution to reverse the Citizens United Decision, removing money from politics.
-
DNC ensures fair districting and proportional representation
-
People now have the power to enact real meaningful change
Simultaneously:
-
Promote FairVote, educate people door to door and on the streets, buy ad space if you can
-
Protect local broadcast infrastructure and donate to forums where people discuss these issues to keep them running
-
Utilize Artwork to get people’s attention on these issues.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Its unpopular, but its actionable and helps give space to further grow our progressive movement.
Tankies disagree, but don’t put forth a real adgenda. Such unserious group.
-
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
there already is a us state without first past the post, it’s electors voted for trump.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
So leftism is about wanting more comfortable public benches for the homeless to sleep on, while liberalism is about not wanting people to be homeless at all?
Do you ever get tired of needing to be outraged by everything all of the time and just want to be in a society where people actually work to improve things rather than just expressing impotent outrage? Ah but that would require doing work and leftists don’t want to do any work or they might be screamed at by other leftists for being “liberal.”
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Fuck you.
But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Why is this stuff being blamed on liberals and not conservatives all of a sudden? I feel like Trump and the right really succeeded in making you all hate each other while they run off with the country.
In my country at least the conservatives pull this shit, and if anything the liberals go to the other extreme too much, which is “just let homeless people make shanty towns in parks and subways it’s their right” both are stupid but one is very clearly worse
buttnugget@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
By your logic, anyone from Australia would say the literal exact opposite. Let’s not forget what Liberal parties around the world are like.
That being said, in the US there are no elected center left candidates except maybe two or three. Elected Democrats—liberals, usually—are just as traitor lunatic as right wingers when it comes to anti homeless designs.
The fact that you talk about “the other extreme” without even a hint of self reflection is troublesome at best. The other “extreme” is called housing, son.
SippyCup@feddit.nl 5 weeks ago
Conservatives wouldn’t build the bench.
Free public spaces don’t encourage people to go in to a shop hard enough. You wanna sit down? Starbucks has chairs. Want a sip of water, go buy a bottle.
Snowclone@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Technically speaking liberalism is about letting business do whatever they want without regulation. Some of those regulations are unions and fair pay and fair labor laws. Those things all do a good job or eliminating homelessness. Social programs could easily end homelessness, and a functioning, non abusive foster care system would eliminate a huge amount of homelessnes, poverty and crime. These require regulation business and taxing the wealthy sufficiently too fund program that help orphans, children in general, and the working class who have been largely shoved below poverty, the rest of our social problems would be eliminated by an education system that is geared tower maximum education for everyone capable and NOT saving money and making sure we don’t accidently educate poor or non white children too much.
Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
For those not in the know, covenant house is a homeless shelter for kids based in NYC. They house homeless children up to age 21. I emancipated myself when I was 16 and started college. Stupid me didn’t realize that the dorms closed during Thanksgiving, Christmas, and other holidays. Going back home for the holidays was out of the question because my mother let my rapist back into the house to live with her, (the reason why I emancipated myself in the first place.) I spent every holiday my freshman year of college at covenant house. I slept on a mat in a room with a bunch of other kids, but it was better than being on the streets and I didn’t go hungry. I learned my lesson after that year and rented a room sophomore-senior instead of deciding to live in dorm housing. For anyone that knows any homeless children that need help, they have a crisis line called the 9 line. 1-800-999-9999.
anachrohack@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
This is not literally liberalism lmao
NutWrench@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
A liberal didn’t build that bench.
ano_ba_to@sopuli.xyz 5 weeks ago
I’m a side sleeper. I can sleep on this bench. Given the other half of the government would get rid of the bench altogether, this is a good compromise. Now if you want to get rid of the divider altogether, the fascist side of the government needs to be thoroughly and consistently beaten. That’s just the system. You can make an argument that the “ideal” left is incompetent too for always losing.
wpb@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
apnews.com/…/california-newsom-homeless-61ebe5b2a…
For anyone saying that the democrats are bad for the homeless, please look at this.
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 5 weeks ago
Oh, I didn’t realize it was kids hour for neolibs to comment on lemmy.
Well, get your ignorance out now kids, it is gonna hurt less than if you deny it wayyyyy into your adulthood…
sigh
falls asleep on bench
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
Anybody who uses “literally” to mean anything but “literally”: a) needs to be caned, b) literally has no valuable opinions.
andybytes@programming.dev 5 weeks ago
Yankee woke neo_Liberalism is stupidity trying to look good with little to no oversight. Yankee Conservatism is bitches runing wild.
CalipherJones@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
How is this liberalism?
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
How would sleeping on that bench be any better than the ground even without the arms? If it was cold at all you would freeze from below.
ano_ba_to@sopuli.xyz 5 weeks ago
I’m a side sleeper. I can sleep on this bench. Given the other half of the government would get rid of the bench altogether, this is a good compromise. Now if you want to get rid of the divider altogether, the fascist side of the government needs to be thoroughly and consistently beaten. That’s just the system. You can make an argument that the “ideal” left is incompetent too for always losing.
LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 5 weeks ago
Anatole France, 1894
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks ago
I commented that exact quote several times on Lemmy, nice to see other people do the same!
wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
It’s been one of my favorites for decades!
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Also fines agricultural workers and CEOs the same for speeding on their way to work—except for that Nokia executive that one time & his countrymen