• 0 Posts
  • 40 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 5th, 2025

help-circle
  • Michael@slrpnk.nettomemes@lemmy.worldAllow me to offer my strength
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 minutes ago

    Some people need floaties to stay afloat. Some people need a life jacket. Some people need a solid platform to dip their feet in. Some people fucking melt when they touch water. Whatever accommodation they need or whatever their situation, it’s all perfectly acceptable in my book.

    We can help them to thrive without breaking a sweat with our empathy, technology, and ingenuity.


  • Michael@slrpnk.nettomemes@lemmy.worldAllow me to offer my strength
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Social skills is another way of saying the abilities required to function in a society. You might as well ask why do you need to learn to swim to get in the pool.

    Even if one is uninhibited socially, it’s unrealistic to expect them to be able to function how society often dictates or requires.

    Last I checked, this world is pretty cruel, especially to those who are vulnerable.


  • Michael@slrpnk.nettomemes@lemmy.worldAllow me to offer my strength
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Why do you need to be forced by society to develop social skills? Why isn’t putting your best forward enough? For various real reasons, some people just aren’t able to meet the standard forced upon them.

    Trauma plays a big role in some that have trouble communicating. Instead of blaming people for being “raised by a screen”, practice kindness and compassion. Do your part to make this world more inclusive, accessible, and less traumatizing for all individuals, or don’t - up to you.




  • The article doesn’t specify, it only specifies additional training for law enforcement officers, but I highly doubt it will be the case that educated professionals go on the scene. The various mentions of first responders reads as first responders to me.

    Democratic officials nationwide have increasingly embraced civil commitments in recent years as a way to address the colliding crises of homelessness, mental illness and crime in their communities.

    You can’t solve homelessness and crime with involuntary commitment. This is woefully ineffective policy, no matter how you cut it.



  • Asking for our country’s government to stop meddling in the Middle East and funneling a very large chunk of our money paid into it by taxpayers for war and offense isn’t asking the world. We aren’t barbarians, we can effortlessly provide for human needs with our technology and organization as a society.

    Helping individuals live a basic life is a not an “expense”. It’s a misnomer to call it that. There would be many who would create more value to the economy than what is spent on them if they received the proper support and weren’t put under so much pressure.







  • But many of these people couldn’t afford “affordable housing”, so it would need to be free. Food would need to be free, electricity would need to be free, water, internet, etc would all need to be free (for them, but paid for by taxpayers). Also where is the new affordable housing being built, and who is paying for it?

    That would be up for the state of New York to determine. Housing is a right, whether or not the laws have caught up. Food is a right and so is water. Electricity isn’t a luxury. If they could afford the housing at a later date, their eligibility for things being “free” should be re-evaluated.

    Perhaps the many corporations and billionaires that dodge taxes could pay for it. Perhaps the federal government could stop spending trillions on war out of US taxpayer money and provide homes for homeless and vulnerable individuals? Perhaps, if we allow these individuals to feel safe and heal, without punishing them criminally or otherwise traumatizing them, they would later offset the expenses spent to better them.

    Huh? The point was that using YOUR scenario, people could easily abuse the system to simply get free housing/food/etc by missing a rent payment and getting taken away and given a free house/food/etc.

    You aren’t abusing the system by needing a house. If we’re talking free or affordable housing, again, there is a crisis, and it should be provided to individuals.





  • who are clearly having an episode.

    What if it was hearsay? What if they got the wrong person? Are you aware that a false report could be made by somebody who hates homeless people? A homeless person experiencing an “episode” could be them expressing grief, sorrow, and any number of emotions in reaction to their life or situation, but they lack the privacy to express themselves. Better take their freedom away, then.

    A person who uses drugs is not inherently mentally ill. Why cart them to a mental institution instead of giving them the option to go to a rehab?



  • If you ignore the due process and evidence I guess. This is for when police would have been dispatched to a mental health emergency.

    A first responder is dispatched and kidnaps them. Where is the due process or evidence? Appearing mentally ill or being impoverished is not a crime or evidence of mental illness. A first responder is not a psychiatrist or able to diagnose somebody in such an environment.

    And they often lack the funds because of their severe mental illness that makes them unable to function properly in society. It’s hard to hold down a job (or even get one) when you think that everyone is a lizard person who is trying to take over the world and are laying eggs in peoples brains, because of severe mental illness.

    And who could blame them for thinking that? These are people that see first-hand the horrors of society and capitalism, of drug abuse and addiction. You can be unemployable in the US for different reasons than severe mental illness, like having a criminal conviction. Should they receive treatment for their delusions if it is imminently harming themselves or others, they are violent, or have committed a crime? Yes, it would likely be appropriate.

    There are people that literally cannot take care of themselves due to mental illness. No matter how many services you offer them, it’s just more services that they won’t use. If the option is commit them and take care of them, or let them die, you’re saying let them die.

    If they are a threat to themselves and others, have committed a crime, or are actively violent, they should be given due process and treatment they consent to prior to involuntary treatment.

    I’ll ask again - if a homeless severely, severely mentally ill person refuses all help, what do you suggest the government do?

    I’ve answered this in abundance. Re-read. It is the job of society and everybody in it to create a world that is less traumatizing, that is less exploitative, that nurtures every one of its members and helps them to unleash their potential. For individuals experiencing psychosis who are not violent, they should be given the option of an environment similar to a Soteria House.