“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.”
Re your other comment: do you think there are only 2000 homeless kids in North America? What they’re doing isn’t even close to enough, by multiple orders of magnitude.
The disparity between demand and supply is so vast it feels like the government isn’t even trying.
Do you think even all the charities put together come close to fixing the problem? 'Cause they don’t, which you would understand if you’d actually bothered to avail yourself of the info you asked for beyond your “short wikipedia scan.”
I’m not that invested in this beyond a quick wiki scan. Sorry to disappoint you righteous rage.
I live in a country where we have a social safety net, so even having charities for such basic problems is weird to begin with. What is even weirder is to rant on the internet about people who are at least trying to solve the problem.
You’re the one who posted misinformation, got called out, asked for more info, and then dismissed it when given. That’s your shitty behavior, not mine.
It would be nice to see shelter and support being provided, rather than a bisected bench designed to discourage the ability to comfortably lie down for a night’s rest.
So you would prefer that there is no shelter and more benches for homeless children?
I think the message is perfectly clear, and people online are just looking for reasons to be upset (not that they would do something about it, just posting angrily).
I would prefer shelter and no anti-homeless architecture. But I get that you prefer anti-homeless architecture and no shelter, since we’re being uncharitable.
“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.”
Maybe the populous should have been more specific then
I believe populace means the people, whereas populous is an adjective that’s a synonym of crowded
I suppose “populous” could be contextually nounified in niche circumstances.
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
Except for the part where, in reality, they didn’t actually do that.
My knowledge is limited to a short wikipedia scan, but I didn’t see any reason to doubt they do it. Feel free to link some info if you know better.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=not+enough+homeless+shelters&ia=web
Re your other comment: do you think there are only 2000 homeless kids in North America? What they’re doing isn’t even close to enough, by multiple orders of magnitude.
The disparity between demand and supply is so vast it feels like the government isn’t even trying.
Do you think there’s only 1 charity in north America? What a weird argument to make.
Do you think even all the charities put together come close to fixing the problem? 'Cause they don’t, which you would understand if you’d actually bothered to avail yourself of the info you asked for beyond your “short wikipedia scan.”
I’m not that invested in this beyond a quick wiki scan. Sorry to disappoint you righteous rage.
I live in a country where we have a social safety net, so even having charities for such basic problems is weird to begin with. What is even weirder is to rant on the internet about people who are at least trying to solve the problem.
You’re the one who posted misinformation, got called out, asked for more info, and then dismissed it when given. That’s your shitty behavior, not mine.
It would be nice to see shelter and support being provided, rather than a bisected bench designed to discourage the ability to comfortably lie down for a night’s rest.
As far as a quick Google search goes, support seems to be provided, they offer 2000 shelter spots across north America.
Instead the message is “no child should ever sleep on the streets. We made it impossible to sleep on this bench because it’s for people we want here.”
So you would prefer that there is no shelter and more benches for homeless children?
I think the message is perfectly clear, and people online are just looking for reasons to be upset (not that they would do something about it, just posting angrily).
I would prefer shelter and no anti-homeless architecture. But I get that you prefer anti-homeless architecture and no shelter, since we’re being uncharitable.
I live in a country where if you don’t have a job the government will pay for your rent and utilities, indefinitely.
Additionally, I have a deal with them as well: If they don’t sleep on the benches I will not sit in their beds. Works wonders.
Well, good for you. I live in a country that doesn’t. I live in a country where your perspective is classist and callous.
You forgot racist. Everything you don’t like is racist.
Keep raging at the people trying to solve the problem while you do nothing.
I did not. Though now I suspect you hear it a lot.
hostile architecture is not a solution.