• Buelldozer@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    It’s not “sleeping outdoors” that is at issue here, it’s the long term encampments in public spaces and how to deal with them.

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Okay then, why is the solution of making sleeping outdoors illegal bring debated by the highest court in the land? Why is the supreme court of the US even entertaining such an unethical proposition? Doing so is just the US abdicating responsibility for it’s people, and intensifying and welcoming inequality. Why not debate starting housing programmes for people instead, so that people do not have to sleep outside in the first place?

    • galoisghost@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Given these people have nowhere to go why not set aside some public land that allows long term encampments or maybe if it’s a concern about the safety of these encampments, the government could acquire an empty office building and retrofit it with modest accommodations for these peoples.

      Or you could just admit it’s not about helping these people it’s about making them go away.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Those are both reasonable solutions and I’m not arguing against them. I just pointed out that this fight isn’t about banning homeless people from sleeping outside. It’s more nuanced than that.