Yes, can confirm, I am not much more than skin, bones and feathers. Not even much of a brain, they took that away too 😔

I’m imagining this video but with “Saddam Hussain” instead of “cookie monster”

I’m pretty sure it’s a joke to refer to some form of mysterious, unknowable power conducted by secretive practitioners or something. However, if you’re gonna get upset about it and accuse people of being bigots then you should probably be more specific about which religion you’re referring to and what’s wrong with their statement. There are a number of religions that get called “voodoo” like Louisiana Voodoo, Haitian Vodou, Hoodoo, and Juju. Some of these religions encourage secrecy, others don’t. Some incorporate magic, others don’t. Some use talismans, others feature spiritual possession, and so on.

Edit: like, I’m not saying you’re necessarily right or wrong, but you gotta be more specific if you want to clear up misconceptions, and you have to make sure you have your facts straight. You can’t just say, “X is wrong/bad” and expect everyone to go along with it if they can’t see why it’s wrong or bad. Yes, you could just tell people to shut up and get with the program, but the kind of people who are willing to just “shut up and get with the program” probably are not going to be strong supporters because they don’t really understand what they’re supporting.

Tbh I’d want a lawn. Not because I like grass, but because of the outdoor space. A community garden with dedicated plots would be a decent alternative, but I like the idea of having some space in front of my home to decorate or cultivate. That said, seeking green space shouldn’t be mutually exclusive with density. Build stepped pyramids or something, where each floor is offset by the previous floor’s yard so that everyone’s yards have sunlight but you’re still building upwards.

Also, row houses are a thing. Medium density but still have a small front and back garden.

Am American, can confirm that’s the symbol of our volunteer fuel truck fleet. They’re volunteers who drive around in marked vehicles with huge gas tanks capable of filling multiple cars before needing to refuel. The fleet was established in response to people finding themselves stranded in the middle of nowhere without gas. The US is a big place and they’d misjudge how much fuel they have and end up miles away from any gas stations.

Some people will even get super into it and cover their cars with flags and shit. It’s super patriotic and fun to watch. Additionally, the US Republican party is the main supporter of this program, so most fuel vehicles are gonna be owned by hardcore Republicans (the Dems want to end it in favor of a government-funded fleet of emergency battery trucks). As such, probably like, 95% of trump trucks are part of the fuel truck fleet, so feel free to siphon gas from those as well (if you have trouble finding the sticker, don’t worry, the sticker is probably just hidden among all the other stickers and flags). You probably won’t get in trouble, but if you do (like you get unlucky and siphon from one of the rare, greedy “gas guzzlers”, as we like to call 'em), just explain that it was a misunderstanding. It happens all the time, you’ll be fine.

That said, be careful while doing it. Some people can be very judgy about who gets gas and who doesn’t; if they percieve that you don’t actually need the gas then they might get aggressive. It’s technically meant for people in need, but like, how many people are gonna find themselves without a place to get gas in the city? Besides, there’s no legal requirement for you to prove you have an empty tank. It’s illegal for them to stop you, but they might try to do it anyway. As such, the best policy is to wait until they leave and do it while they aren’t looking.

Not quite, it isn’t, not in overall message

Listen, I may have been horrible at phrasing what I’m saying, but that’s legitimately what I’ve been trying to argue. The difference I guess is that I’m anticipating the possible negative outcomes and saying they should be resolved simultaneously instead of just saying “throw money at them”.

you’ll see that I didn’t object to any additional help, I just insist on substantial cash first

Okay, sooooo… Again, apparently I was bad at explaining myself, but that’s basically what I was trying to say, just that instead of cash now, resolve issues later, I think that you should resolve the possible issues at the same time.

reject most firmly your absurd histrionics about inflation.

Why is it hard to believe that rich people will happily destroy the world if it means they get an extra dollar or two? They’re already doing it. Recent history has firmly established that rich people are consistently among the worst human beings that humanity has to offer. They would unironically feed a baby into a blender if that meant their company ran 0.1% more efficiently. That’s why I’m convinced they’ll just fuck people over again. You have to either remove them from the equation as well, or at the very least, quarantine them so their obscene wealth and influence can’t hurt anyone in the real world.

And we can make it quick bby. It doesn’t have to take long~.

That’s literally what I’ve been saying this entire fucking time you dingus.

Edit:

I’m not convinced that just cash will solve homelessness or poverty. It may help, but it seems like a “give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime” kinda situation. Give people the fish so they can eat, but if you want them to actually be independent, then you gotta make sure they have the tools they need to do so.

Key sentence in bold and italics. From my first comment in this thread.

Right… But they gotta be able to afford to continually afford those tools. Rich people try to suck at much money out of people as possible. The moment they hear that poor people are receiving money is the moment they smell blood in the water. They’ll just hike up prices in response. That’s why I’m not convinced that throwing money at poor people will work.

It’s not their fault.

They didn’t do anything wrong.

It’s the rich people who are the problem.

Get rid of the rich people or their ability to price people out of life and boom! Now the money you give poor people will remain effective. Otherwise they might be able to buy tools today, but the money might not be enough to buy tools again tomorrow.

I give up. You’re not reading what I’m saying. I’m actually pretty far left, further left than it seems you or most of the people here are considering how they object to the idea that people should receive whatever assistance they need, not just have money thrown in their face and told to fuck off

Edit: sigh one last try. I think you’re fucking with me, and if so then you’re doing a really good job, so congrats. Well done, you got me pretty good.

Seriously? You went from giving some homeless people enough money to get accommodation and food to a global inflation crisis?

Actually yes. It sounds unhinged, but when you’re talking about rich people, they’ll do whatever to get richer. Rich people will unironically bring the economy to the brink of collapse if it means they’ll get richer. Where have you been the past, oh I dunno, all of human civilization?

It’s not poor people’s fault.

It’s nothing they’ve done.

It’s all rich people.

Get rid of the rich people. Now you won’t have to keep increasing the money you give poor people. Otherwise someone might be able to afford tools today but be unable to buy new ones tomorrow.

US dollars make up nearly 60% of the world’s reserve currency. I could be mistaken here, but my understanding is that means a significant chunk of the world is using the USD as a significant part of their currency standard (#2 is the euro with just under 20%). As such, if I understand correctly that means that if the US dollar undergoes inflation, then the rest of the world will experience at least some inflation as well.

MW has barely changed in the USA over decades but has risen much more elsewhere. If the theory were right, USA would have been largely free of inflation…

This is only true if you look at federal minimum wage. Wages aren’t keeping up with inflation, but most US cities have an official or unofficial minimum wage of $15/hr. I think that shift happened about 10yrs ago, and afaik nothing’s changed since then.

Why? Corporate greed. Poor regulation. International tax avoidance.

Exactly. They knew they could charge more, and so they did. That’s what inflation is. Everyone realized they could charge more, so they did. The dollar decreased in value because prices went up across the board.

Inflation.

Firstly, I forgot that a lot of countries don’t have the same level of greed as the US, but I’m arguing from an American perspective. Giving out money may legitimately work in other countries, but I think American executives are too greedy for something to work like that in the US at an official capacity without additional intervention. Secondly, I’m not trying to say that. I’m saying to do more than that because I believe that companies in the US are too greedy to allow it to “just work”.

Money is great, but do more than that.

Money is great, but do more than that.

Money is great, but do more than that.

Like, how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Money is great, but do more than that.

Money is great, but do more than that.

Money is great, but do more than that.

Prices are increasing faster than inflation but wages have stagnated, yet you’re saying that more money won’t lead to people once again being priced out of life. That runs contrary to what is already going on.

You need to do things like cap rent, build public housing, make sure they can afford food even when CEOs are renting out pineapples, make sure they have transportation, make sure they have somewhere to live, and so on.

The US specifically runs on greed. If CEOs hear that everyone’s going to be getting more money, then they’re going to start charging more money because that’s how the US works. Just giving out money may work for other countries, but the US is fucked as hell. Charities giving out money doesn’t equate to everyone in need getting money which is why prices don’t increase, companies don’t know who to fleece; but if CEOs could find out who was getting the charity money, they’d absolutely try to charge them more. If everyone is getting money, then the CEOs will just fuck people over again to afford a new yacht.

And even then. Even then there will be people in very poor mental health who desperately need attention but they cannot afford mental health services. These people will not be able to function with money alone. These people need serious help. Money alone will not help these people.

The message I’m trying to convey is that you should have other things available to them if they need it; but you seem to be saying to just throw money at them and tell them to fuck off.

That’s because they go the extra mile and do things like cap rent and shit. If you want to solve poverty, that’s the kind of thing you have to do. The US is run on greed, which is why prices are rising faster than inflation, but wages aren’t even keeping up with inflation.

No. What I’m saying is to do more than that. Why is this so fucking hard for people to understand? I feel like I’m going crazy.

In my experience, people take these things literally.

In my experience, there are people who unironically would read this and think, “oh, all we gotta do is give money and then it’ll be fixed” and then get mad when it didn’t work for everyone.

What am I missing here?

Edit: also,

You think that corporations raise prices in order to prevent homeless people from buying their products? What kind of crazy logic is that?

No. But they’re going to hear the words, “[homeless will have] more money to spend [for necessities]” and then start salivating because they’re greedy as fuck. Haven’t we established that greed is the reason why prices keep getting raised?

Okay, and? Again, some people are gonna need more than just money. Furthermore, money doesn’t help the fact that they’re being overcharged for rent, food, healthcare, whatever. Give them money and the prices will just go up. You have to address the cause too.

The meme literally says,

“How do we solve poverty”

Research: give poor people money

“Maybe with cheap canned food?”

Research: no, just give them money

“I have old clothes I hate now. I bet giving them away would help!”

Research: No…

“Budget lessons!”

Research: fuck you guys.

It literally says, “no, just give them money.”

The reason why I’m hung up on this is because the meme is trying to be informative and funny at the same time but imo it misses the mark because it oversimplifies the issue. It’s literally saying that you just give money to poor people and poverty goes away; but that’s not how that works. It may help reduce poverty, but capitalists will just raise prices again and now you’re back at square one.

Edit: expanded a sentence (in bold).

What about the people that don’t? That’s what I’m saying. Yes, it’ll help significantly, but the meme is presenting it as if it’s the only solution.

Edit 3: one last edit that I’m putting at the top because I’m not sure if people are only reading part of what I’ve written, jumping to conclusions and then putting words into my mouth; or if I’ve just been very bad at conveying what I’m trying to say.

Firstly: I’m arguing from an American perspective, something I failed to specify.

Secondly: money is great, however, many people need more than money. By all means, give them money, but make sure they have other resources in case they need it. If nothing else, there are a lot of people in homelessness or poverty with serious mental health needs. Money isn’t going to help if they can’t afford healthcare.

Thirdly: I also failed to give examples of what I meant by, do something else too. I meant, cap rent, build public housing, ensure that people have access to food even when CEOs are renting out pineapples, etc.

Finally: the US runs on greed. Prices in the US are outstripping wages dramatically because CEOs realized they could charge more. I think the reason why giving money works in studies is because CEOs don’t know who’s getting the handouts; if they did, they’d absolutely try to fleece them for the assistance money. That’s why doing it universally, so that CEOs know that a lot of people are getting additional money, without any other form of assistance, will just lead to people being priced out of life again.

Not sure how much I’ll contribute or respond after this. I’m feeling kinda discouraged due to how many people are putting words in my mouth (it may be a misunderstanding, but it’s still demoralizing).

Oh my god, I’m using fish as a metaphor for money, and teaching someone to fish as a metaphor for ensuring their ability to provide for themselves. That’s what the metaphor is about. Ensuring people’s ability to provide for themselves. Is that really what y’all are confused about? If you see me referring to “fish” then I’m talking about money, not food.

I’m not convinced that just cash will solve homelessness or poverty. It may help, but it seems like a “give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime” kinda situation. Give people the fish so they can eat, but if you want them to actually be independent, then you gotta make sure they have the tools they need to do so.

And you know what, maybe they just are that way, maybe they’re just cursed to always be a dependent on someone. However, if that’s the case then they’re going to need way more help than just fish. In the meantime though, maybe treat them like human beings that are down on their luck but otherwise capable of supporting themselves. Yeah, make sure they have food, a roof over their head, water, toilets and so on, but don’t stop there. That’s why I’m saying this, there may be people who see your post and think that just throwing money at the problem will make it go away. It’ll help, but it’s not gonna fix it 100%.

Edit: I’m not sure why it’s controversial to say that people need more help than just money. Personally? If I was homeless or in poverty, I’d want more than just money. Like, I’m not saying to not give people who are homeless or in poverty money, but what I’m trying to say is that you shouldn’t stop there.

Edit 2: I don’t understand why people are so confused here. I’m not saying it won’t work for some people, but there are people that it won’t work for. To repeat something I said further along, in my experience, there are people who take these things literally. In my experience, there are people who would look at this meme, say, “sounds good, let’s do that” and then get mad when it doesn’t work for everyone.

I’m not saying that money won’t help a lot of people; it would. It’s just that there are people who will take this literally and believe it’s the only thing you have to do.

WTF, just build an apartment out of tiny houses and make sure there are common and private areas for people to relax in. Tack two together for family apartments. You can build a really small, cheap house without removing the kitchen.

Like, okay, if they were arguing for bachelor dorms, where each person has their own bedroom but they share a common area with showers, bathrooms and kitchens, then okay. But that’s not gonna work for couples, they’re gonna at least want their own bathroom; and families with children? Forget it. They’re gonna want their own kitchen and bathroom so they don’t have to wander out into a common area in the middle of the night in their underwear because their baby wants milk and won’t stop screaming if it doesn’t get warm milk.

Yes, I’m very aware of everything you just said. Doesn’t mean it isn’t frustrating to find out that an idea you had was a good idea, but you couldn’t study it because you don’t know enough about the subject. I love science and engineering, but I didn’t find that out until after I graduated and I don’t have the money to “respec”.

Like, you have a heightened awareness of what’s happening around you, but a reduced sense of agency or ability to react.

Holy shit this is exactly how I feel a lot of the time. Your sense of agency refers to your percieved ability to alter the outcome of an event, yes?