this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024

1603 points (99.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

6162 readers

2767 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
Be nice.
No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1603

The park in my parent's neighborhood got rid of all the benches (slrpnk.net)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

172 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 4) 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

Out door trash receptacles as well.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You can't have homeless sleeping on benches, it looks bad and scares away the touri$t$... real estate agencies probably agree.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 months ago (4 children)

I've bought a camping stool recently. It folds up and small enough to put in a backpack.

I have twisted discs and find it difficult sometimes to find a seat. Sucks. But man, I can't recommend camping stools enough! I love this thing.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 months ago (2 children)

to be fair, it's the NIMBY people complaining to the state about those people, and then the ordinances being passed

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Then there's the whole corporate aspect. How can you expect corporate businesses to drive people to be in their stores if you let them loiter around outside on government provided benches? If the only place to sit is in a Starbucks and they require you to buy something to stay in the store, well...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

incidentally, the people who frequent starbucks overlap with the NIMBY people in the venn diagram of people responsible for hostile architecture

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That picture is a great example. Moynihan train hall is the absolute worst

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Moynihan is exceptionally difficult to just loiter in (which is a weird thing to say about a place where people wait for trains) but apparently that's what it takes to be better than the old Penn Station.

[–] [email protected] 74 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm visiting Naples at the moment with my Italian boyfriend, and I remarked to him that Naples has a lot of places that people can just hang out without spending money, something that the UK has lost. Part of this is due to the climate, but also corporatism hasn't hit Italy as hard as other western countries. It really is a shame.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago (8 children)

corporatism hasn’t hit Italy as hard as other western countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] [email protected] 55 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Reminds me of that story about a sports field that got weird „opening hours“ because some old fuck nearby didn’t like the children being noisy near his house. After some months it got turned into a parking lot because „no one was using the sports field“.

Bro, I hate children too. But you have to draw the line at lung cancer.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago

So he hates the noise the youth made, but is ok with people revving to the extremes.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 36 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The boring-dystopia solution: a company that rents out chairs, and records everything that happens around those chairs for training AIs.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago

Their excuse, 'for the safety of children'.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago

Shhh. Don’t give them ideas

[–] [email protected] 230 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Rather than just help them (which is cheaper btw) they take services away from everyone in an attempt to make their area shitty enough they'll go somewhere else...

Completely ignoring that they're making it shitty for the people they want to keep too, which makes people want to leave and depressed selling prices, which can easily lead to a panic and flight from an area destroying the community.

Even from a purely selfish capitalistic perspective, it's best to just have a fucking safety net. Beyond all the ethical reasons we should, there's not a single logical reason not to fucking help people.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 months ago

Yeah, but Republican voters want to hurt people who aren't like them. How will your proposal help them do that??

[+] [email protected] -84 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (9 children)

The problem is that when you do help people, more people keep showing up who want help too. There's a good reason why a couple hundred thousand migrants have come to NYC (where I live) and that isn't because there's no "fucking safety net". Frankly, I want less of a safety net here so that these people leave and the rest of the country has to do its share. I feel absolutely no guilt saying that I want either those benches a person can't lie down on or no benches at all in the public areas I go to.

There are help-the-homeless-even-more advocates in NYC so I'm not saying everyone is a hypocrite, but I expect that the overlap between "complains about measures to deter homeless people" and "lives in a neighborhood with a lot of homeless people" is small.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 4 months ago (10 children)

There's always some place that's worse. What you're arguing for here is a race to the bottom, where everyone tries to be worse than their neighbours in order to get the undesirables to go there instead.

In essentially "the tragedy of the commons" but in an opposite sense. If everyone gets worse in an attempt to get rid of "undesirables", you just end up with everywhere being worse, and the "undesirables" still being around. What we need is for everyone to build safety nets together. That might actually improve the situation.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] [email protected] 58 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The problem is that when you do help people, more people keep showing up who want help too.

Which is why if it happens on a federal level, then people don't congregate in the few places that aren't as worse as possible.

If we handle it on a city or even state level, then people spit out by the worst states will always migrate, subsidizing the cost of the policies for those shitty states. And providing the incentive to be as cruel as possible.

That's the thing with the logic against it, you end up arguing that it should be done on a federal level and agreeing with the person you're arguing with.

Always worth the time for a reply tho. Hopefully it sticks.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] [email protected] 93 points 4 months ago

The problem is that businesses see it as a way to drive customers into their stores where they can then demand they either buy something or leave. This is end stage capitalism bullshit where they're trying to wring blood from a stone.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 124 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

Well duh. If people start gathering in public and talking to each other with a modicum of comfort, they might get thoughts in their heads

[–] [email protected] 47 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)