• LordGimp@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Why does “violent drug addicts with severe mental illness” mean somehow they shouldn’t be helped anyways?

  • kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    22 hours ago

    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.

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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.

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      I can’t speak for Elon (and will not defend him) but Kyle (from Secular Talk) is dramatically underestimating the problem by tossing out the $20 billion figure. You can’t just throw a bunch of money at a person with severe mental illnesses and addictions and just expect them to be okay.

      The state of California has spent over $24 billion on homelessness since 2019 yet the number of homeless people in the state has grown by 20%. Obviously they aren’t spending the money wisely in a manner that would maximize reduction of homelessness, but Kyle didn’t specify how the money should be spent either. Perhaps that’s actually the hard problem: how do you spend the money in the way that would be most effective?

      • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 day ago

        Gonna need you to define “that” in "that money.” If you mean government programs, much of those were defunded back in the Reagan admin. While institutions back then did need broad changes, their removal without a suitable replacement vastly increased the homelessness issue.

    • smeenz@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      I wonder what we should call a violent drug addict, convicted of inciting insurrection, living in housing paid for by the public ?

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    the US in total is a right-wing place that thinks that “hard work” is the way of life, and anybody who doesn’t adhere to that is a “drug-addict” or a psychopath.

  • adm@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    You know, even if what he’s saying is half true. We HAD systems to help those mentally ill drug addicts and they got gutted. Making them, wait for it, Homeless! you prick.

  • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    Also half of all homeless people are foster kids who aged out of the system. They don’t have a family to fall back on.

  • murmurations@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

  • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    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

    • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      I’d say destroying USAID is the one good thing they did. Long term mind you. I won’t deny the short term effects of such an instant cutoff to these programs.

      But USAID is primarily used to disrupt the economic systems of nations that the US exploits for cheap labor.

      I’d quote the revolutionary Thomas Sankara

      Those who come with wheat, millet, corn or milk, they are not helping us. Those who really want to help us can give us ploughs, tractors, fertilizers, insecticides, watering cans, drills and dams. That is how we would define food aid.

      The US primarily uses its food aid to disrupt these nations from being self sustainable and force their industry into a single crop that is most beneficial for US capitalist to export.

      So, while the shorterm is bad. The disconnection of these exploitative relationships are good.

      Obviously it would be better if these programs were slowly removed. But continuing them for the next 4 years would be worse then ending them drastically.

      Also, mind you, I don’t think Trump even realizes why these programs exist to benefit the US exploitation of the third world. I think he sees them simply as “foreign aid”. So his own ignorance of them actually ends up destroying an important part of US Imperialism by mistake.

      Removing the exploitative relationships that the US has with third world countries in the form of “foreign aid” is good. It’s just that (1) Trump actually thinks these benefit these nations. Which they do not. And (2) the well intentioned liberals thinks the same as Trump does. So we end up with this weird state where both are wrong but the policy is actually good long term.

      Again, there will absolutely be problems as these dependencies are cut of so quickly. But no more than the continued exploitation in the long term would result in.

      At Thomas Sankara said. These direct food injections are not helpful. They are a way that capitalist use to direct the economy of third world nations towards dependency on America Imperialism. Ending them is good for these nations. Even if there are struggles when they end.

      Self determination and self sustainability have been robbed from these nations by USAID for decades.

        • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

          I think you missed the entire point of my comment if you don’t think I acknowledge that. Two things can be true at once.

          There are also other nations like the EU and China that are assisting these countries. As well as private charities working to compensate for this lack of immediate aid.

          USAID is not meant to help these nations. It is meant to control their crops by injecting massive amounts of cheep foods, grown in the US, to destroy their local markets for growing crops that country would need to be self sustainable.

          It forces the farmers in these countries to only grow sugarcane, bananas, or other crops that cannot be grown in the US. Forcing a reliance on USAID and ensuring the most profitable crops are grown for Capitalist.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s amazing that a man who does enough ket to bring down a racehorse even dares to use the phrase “drug addict” as an insult.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Not unusual for addicts to displace blame onto the people around them in order to justify their addictions.

      The difference between Musk, Thiel, et al and your average American junkie is simply their line of credit. They can keep taking experimental intoxicants, safe in the knowledge their friends will loan them another $2M the next time they wrap their McLauren around a stop sign.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Himself and his other techbro friends that couch surfed for a while, aka violent drug addicts with severe mental health issues.

    • Sciaphobia@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 days ago

      Just more of the same from his class. Wants everyone to believe in a meritocracy, because that means he’s rely great, and the people whose lifeblood he drained to get where he is aren’t victims - they’re just inferior. They wouldn’t be where they are if they were superior like him.

      Probably a guillotine wouldn’t even work on him, he’s so superior. Hypothetically.