- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/28140949
You must log in or register to comment.
Says the homeless illegal.immigrant from a apartheid
One of the talking points in South Africa goes like this:
The “homeless” black people that live in corrugated metal slums all have mansions that were stolen from white people and given to them by the government when apartheid ended.
They choose to live in slums to work in the cities, and go back to their mansions when they’re not working. Alternatively, they don’t live at their mansions because they are too lazy/dumb to actually take care of the property.Hahaha that’s gold. It’s kind of hard for me to accept anybody really believes that. Feels like some disingenuous conviction there or deliberately not examining the statement because they know on at least one level it’s too completely illogical to be true but then again there are some people who’ve had such serious distortions to their reasoning over time that they’re not even lying anymore when they claim to believe this stuff.
Several times in the US I’ve been told that people flying a sign are actually rich from all the money they are given. Totally absurd but people believe it. Mansions they don’t live in is on another level though
Why does “violent drug addicts with severe mental illness” mean somehow they shouldn’t be helped anyways?
‘but if they aren’t hungry and homeless where will their motivation to become professionals and have children come from?’ they are actually this fucking stupid.
Even taking his bullshit argument at face value, he thinks the best solution for these violent drug addicts is to leave them out of the street? Who is the audience here? If you literally think they are all violent, why is leaving them free to roam around the right solution?
I know it’s all about money and grandstanding on his part but this definitely seems like some under-the-influence kind of deep thoughts.
Remember, they are saying what would need to be true to justify what they plan to do. This should be read as Elon declaring intent to put homeless people in camps.
In most cases, the word “genius” is a lie. It’s usually a propaganda word for egomaniacal, ketamine-addicted sociopaths.
his post is factually incorrect, of course.
https://adcare.com/addiction-demographics/homeless-population/
“homeless” is a term used to describe someone who does not live inside a domicile, 40-60% of all homeless people have and hold down jobs.
There’s two types of homeless people. Temporary or chronically. The percentage of chronically homeless who are drug addicts, severely mentally ill, or both (self medication) is around 60-80 (this can vary largely by area).
That’s not to say that drug addicts and severely mentally ill people don’t need help, but it’s like people want to pretend that they don’t exist because they make addressing the homeless issue way more complicated, because at a certain point you have to talk about involuntarily committing people to mental asylums.
To be fair, that is kinda nonsense. Germany and austria, for example have a lot of support networks for people in need, we even have entire networks dedicated to supporting homeless people, so nobody has to be homeless here - yet we do have a lot of them. For some people, homelessness is almost a choice more than an involuntary decision.
Obviously, idk how this would be in america, but I don’t think it would be a lot different.
Coming from someone who has never experienced it, nor has anyone in his family history. That is what needs to change in every billionaires life. Make them homeless foa few years and see how they handle it
Sadly they can’t experience it. Not really.
I remember awhile ago there was some grifter YouTube channel that was posting “Homeless to $100k” videos.
Like even in their made up scenario the first thing they do is ask a friend for a place to stay and some cash.
Like, that’s literally the hardest step and they just act like it’s so simple to the point of not even addressing it.
Most of the difference between people that end up in the final stage of homelessness and people that got back on their feet is the support systems that are available to them.
Which is why people that work to end homelessness do a lot of work focusing on keeping people from even getting to that last stage of homelessness in the first place. It’s much easier for our society to provide safetynets long before anyone ends up on the street addicted to drugs.
Well, times change as often as minds do, so I like to think anything can happen to anyone any time
where does he even get that idea? i never heard people refer to Elon as homeless.
Not sure what you mean.
Edit: I’m dumb. The joke is that Elon is a drug addict. Hit me a few minutes later.
It’s a joke. He’s implying that Elon is a violent drug addict with severe mental illness. Which is, of course, true.
Thanks. Got it just in time to edit my comment and then see your reply. I’m a dummy.
Not sure about now, but there was a time period where he owned no properties and lived in the houses of friends. Staying in someone’s fourth home is not a hardship, but technically he didn’t have a home.
I don’t believe it, and even if it’s true it wasn’t out of necessity. he probably found it convenient to mooch off people like he always does one way or another as a lifelong parasite. he was born into immense wealth. literally the only thing he’s ever done is buy companies. that’s his entire career.
I’m surprised he chose to express his point in this manner. Unless this is an expression of humanity from Mr Musk that we’re so otherwise unaccustomed to that it’s hard to recognise, then I assume he wants to persuade people to have less empathy or sympathy for homeless people, not more. This statement, taken at face value would seem to suggest that contrary to what some may think, homeless people are facing significant challenges not of their own making that have contributed directly to their circumstances.
I’m going to guess that’s not how he meant it
Homeless: without a home.
Weird how he’s lying again. I’ve been there, and I can promise this fuckwit that not having a roof or food in the middle of winter in a city where the stoplights literally freeze is not some kind of illusion. That being prodded away from a public bench in sub-zero temperatures so you can shamble a few blocks whilst the sleep in your eyes freezes, over and over for weeks, so you can’t get more than an hour sleep at a time for months, isn’t the holiday he thinks it is.
Jesus christ, I bob my head to the surface for this? It’s like he’s not even trying to be relatable now.
Projection is the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another.
Psychology Today is another corpo shit hole that avoids paying taxes in the US. Article writers are verified in the loosest sense of the word. Please take psychology today with a grain of salt when used as a resource.
Ok.
its malignant forms, it is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against disowned and highly negative parts of the self by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others, breeding misunderstanding and causing interpersonal damage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Better?
Also I’m not sure why I should care that psychology today does not pay taxes in your country when your country is putting tarrifs on every other country in the world.
Respect to Kyle. Dude started off in the Atheist channel days of YouTube and didn’t fall down the gamer gate MRA pipeline like most of them did. That was such a right wing cash grab that so many channels grifted towards.
Then he continued with good left adjacent commentary on most issues and stayed true to his moral compass. Didn’t fall for the right wing narratives that TYT and other similar channels had during post COVID. He stayed consistent and didn’t grift to the right for a bigger audience.
I disagree with a bit of what he has said over the years. I disagree with him on a lot of “big picture” stuff. But absolute respect to his consistency. I’m pretty sure he’s still entirely user funded still (no sponsors etc).
It’s refreshing to have watched him on and off for a decade and hes been consistently on the correct side of issues. Its rare to see out of a political commentator.
Been watching him off and on for a decade now, it is nice to see how consistent he’s stayed, and you’re right he is entirely user funded and takes great pride in it.
Yep. Glad to hear that’s still true. It’s so nice to see. A complete opposite of a lot of people that I use to love. Ethan Klein being the worst and most recent example.
