The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging on the streets and stealing bread.
Anatole France, 1894
I commented that exact quote several times on Lemmy, nice to see other people do the same!
Working class: “Can we have meaningful reform?”
Conservatives: “No.”
Liberals: "No 😘 🌈 "
I’m frustrated with the reflexive “both sides are equally bad” response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what’s actually happening in our politics.
I’m not naive about the Democratic Party’s problems. They struggle with internal divisions, sometimes cave to corporate pressure, and they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base. But when I look at voting records, policy proposals, and legislative priorities, I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people’s lives.
On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers. The other party doesn’t just oppose these policies, they fight tooth and nail to undermine them, delay them, or dismantle them entirely. That’s not a matter of opinion. That’s a matter of public record.
When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion. Meanwhile, when Republicans have unified control, their priorities have been tax cuts for the wealthy and rolling back environmental protections.
I understand the appeal of cynicism. It can feel sophisticated to dismiss all politicians as equally corrupt. But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.
If you can’t tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you’re not offering insight. You’re providing cover for obstruction.
Does this mean Democrats are perfect? Of course not. Should we hold them accountable when they fall short? Absolutely. But pretending there are no meaningful differences between the parties just because neither is perfect makes it harder to build the coalitions we need to create the change we actually want to see.
From my detached non American (but still a citizen of the planet so likely to get fucked hard by the way Americans vote) point of view, seems like Americans are continually letting perfect be the enemy of least bad. “Well since Democrats are kinda bad in these instances maybe we should just go fully fascist theological doom cult. That will force the Democrats to improve, or kill us all.”
American here…I think it’s actually more the opposite. Everyone is being told to vote for the lessor evil and no one is getting what they want. That’s what caused all this to begin with imo… The Magas torched their party trying to get something different to happen politically (not to excuse them or anyone). This is all on the 2 party system, if we make it out of this I think ending that system is one major change that will need to take place to avoid repeating the cycle. Basically, we lost our Republic a long time ago when Congress stopped representing us and became owned by billionaires.
I have written and rewritten my response here trying to find the right tone. I feel like we are closer to agreement here than might be immediately obvious. I think a lot of what we are seeing now is a result of 50+ years of people who find the idea of your republic distasteful seeking every method they can to erode it away. All the details are just components of this project, seems to me that MAGA is a result of years of stoking xenophobia and anti-intellectualism. Turns out if you spend decades laying the groundwork you can make the situation seem completely hopeless to a whole populace. I sincerely worry the long term goal is to perfect the formula for dismantling democracy and then start exporting it to the rest of the world.
Or I could be a fool, I don’t know and I don’t want to rewrite this again. Sorry that this was so rambling.
The more accurate form of the comment to which you’re reacting would be:
Can I have a free beer?
Conservatives: No
Liberals: Points to novelty sign on wall Free Beer Tomorrow winks “so you want a beer today? That’ll be $8.99”
The results aren’t exactly the same, but the gulf is not meaningful is the problem. Realistically, most people don’t actually like either party, they just dislike the other party more. If one day we had a 7 random parties just appear and Rs and Ds vanish, for a solid 20 years, political discourse would be verdant and nuanced in a way rarely seen in the US.
Ooof that fact that you think the “gulf is not meaningful” is insane.
I mean JFC, are you blind or a troll? I don’t even have enough time to list the Nazi level illegal and democracy ending shit Trump is doing right now.
I agree with you that the parties are not the same. The GOP are outright evil puppets of the billionaire class. The Democrats are ineffectual cowards who’ve made careers out of paying lip service to the right thing, and every now and then doing something helpful if it’s convenient for them and doesn’t piss off their billionaire donors. A lot of the time that ends up translating to the same results for most people.
I don’t buy the “sorry, our hands are tied” line we always get from the left. Dems throw up their hands even when they do have majorities. The first meaningful opportunity the Democrats had to obstruct Trump’s agenda, after the left base had been screaming for weeks for their representatives to do something, Schumer rolled over immediately. I can’t take this party seriously anymore.
the left
Democrats are definitely not leftist. Center right would be more apt.
The dems are not left they are center right. The repubs are far right.
I won’t defend Schumer’s choice here. It was a bad call, and the anger from House Democrats and the base was completely justified. You’re right that the party leadership sometimes folds when they should fight. They make strategic decisions that feel disconnected from the urgency the moment demands. And yes, Democrats have corporate-aligned figures who blunt the force of reform, but that is also a reality of our current system that we have to work within.
But, sticking to your example, there is a key difference: when Democrats cave, it’s often to avoid causing harm, like a shutdown that would devastate working people. When Republicans cave, it’s to secure more tax cuts, more deregulation, and more authoritarian power. The intent and the outcome are not the same, even if the compromise leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.
It also matters that Democrats have factions pushing from within. The anger from House Dems, from AOC, from the base, that’s real pressure that can move things. Republicans don’t have that kind of internal accountability. Their party punishes dissent and rewards obstruction.
And while it’s easy to say “they always have excuses,” the reality is that even when Democrats had a trifecta in 2021, their margin in the Senate was literally 50-50. One or two bad actors (like Manchin or Sinema) could tank an entire agenda, and did. That’s not an excuse. That’s a math problem, and the only way around it is bigger, more engaged progressive coalitions.
So yes, Schumer failed in that moment (and many others). Yes, we should be furious. But walking away or writing off the party entirely means handing power back to a movement that’s not just flawed. It’s actively hostile to democracy, human rights, and the planet. That’s not moral purity. That’s surrender.
I agree with you and like to emphasis on one point you already mentioned. The demcrats encompass everything to the left of the GOP. Because the GOP is far right, everything to the left of it includes center right, conservatives, centrist and liberal opinions, as well as a lot, or most of the left wing depending on definitions.
In my opinion this is one of the major reasons why the democrats seem so undecicive, because there already are so many different world views of people that are forced to be in the same party, because effectively, there only are two of them, and the alternative is straight up fascism.
If the democrats ever regain power, changing the voting system to allow for a 3rd or 4th party to actually emerge would be a saving grace, but unfortunately, the above mentioned composition will likely prevent them from it, even when in power. And on top of that they will have their hands full with the debt crisis.
shitty children petulantly whining they never get their way.
mind you, “their way” would alienate more than 60% of voters
no party is perfect, but they are wholly deluded and will lash out like spurned tweens denied their crocks. they know conservatives don’t give two flying fucks about them, so they have to lash out at dems / liberals / anyone not sufficiently ML to stand up to their purity tests.
it would be hilarious academically, but their bullshit does real world harm.
edit: aw look the shitty petulant children whined and rallied to downvote this! Poor crybabies.
You did this to yourselves, chumps.
Most of the Democrats in Congress are hardly liberal
Leftist. Liberalism is a right wing ideology.
Conservatives: "No. Kill the trans people and put gays in jail. Women belong in the kitchen. "
Liberals: "No 😘 🌈 "
Lemmy: both said no, so they’re the same!
I feel like this shouldn’t have to be explained, but “Both sides bad” does not equal “Both sides equally bad” or “Both sides the same”
There’s not a leftist on Lemmy who wouldn’t rather be patronized while being stomped on than being cussed at while being murdered.
And yes, I voted. No, it didn’t help. It was moderates who didn’t vote, not leftists. Leftists believe in harm reduction while advocating for harm elimination- the two goals aren’t contradictory. Trump stole the election so it’s all pretty much moot anyway.
By focusing on the fact that Democrats version of bad is better than the Republican version of bad, it only helps to ensure that the Democrats are the best we can hope to achieve. There is nothing wrong in wanting actual good and instead of ‘least bad’.
I don’t live in the US so I don’t have first hand experience but both on lemmy and on reddit it was mostly leftists who were spamming “genocide Biden (without mentioning that trump was even worse)”, something about inflation (like it wasn’t a global issue) and other issues where gop is clearly worse. All as a reason to not vote Democrat.
Calling a genocide a genocide should not be a partisan issue, and if you think we need to temper our discussion of genocide so that your preferred genocider can win a fucking election then you are a genocide denier.
The way for the dems to differentiate themselves on this issue was to stop doing a genocide. They couldn’t do that, and so they enabled the worse option because they were just too horny for killing brown kids.
There we go!
You’re angrier at leftists for correctly calling out the dems’ genocide than you are at the dems for their genocide.
I’m angry at leftists helping elect trump thus creating MORE genocide.
How do you know they were leftists? I don’t know where you are from, but it’s been known that bots and foreign powers have been attempting to influence U.S. elections since at least Trumps first term, and let’s be honest it’s extremely likely that it has been going on for far longer than that.
Biden IS pro genocide, So is Harris, So is Trump. I don’t think it’s bad to point that out. Using it as a reason to vote for a Fascist instead is loony tunes, and as someone who frequents Leftist spaces I can tell you not a single person on reddit or Lemmy proposed any such nonsense who was taken seriously and wasn’t’ immediately down-voted into oblivion.
Their talking points were the typical that are considered “leftist” in America (and centrist in Europe): universal Healthcare, free education/forgiving student debt, etc. Whether they were bots or not is impossible to say in this day and age.
Now you can ask them yourself in the reply to the above comment. Here’s a direct link, if it works: https://programming.dev/comment/17635908
I think you might be reading too much into that statement. They were saying that the Democrats have failed to differentiate themselves on that specific issue, and that’s an objective fact.
They also said that Trump was the worst option.
I agree with them that we shouldn’t have to keep quiet about what a shit human being politician A is, on the off chance that it might cause a complete idiot to vote for politician B who is just as bad on that issue and worse in just about every other way.
An idiot is going to idiot no matter what you do, and it’s not on us to cover up for liberals and their shit candidates.
If the Democrats want us to stop discussing what trash human beings their candidates are, there is a simple solution for that. I’m sure you can figure out what that is if you think about it.
No matter where you are in the world, this is going to affect you as well. You should be just as mad at the Democrats for putting an unelectable piece of shit up against Trump as I am, not making excuses for them and blaming leftists. We didn’t have Jack shit to do with it.
The DNC had ONE job, put up a candidate that could beat a fascist dictator. That should have been the easiest job in the world.
They fucked up. And now we are all paying for it. Quit trying to shift the blame where it doesn’t belong.
The American people had one job, not to elect the fascist. The DNC should have been able to ran a dirty diaper and win. The American people elected the president, not the DNC. This is on them. (Let alone the fact primary voters decide decided who the candidate was, not the DNC).
And now those voters are on the internet blaming the DNC, the voting machines, the weather and a thousand other things. Nah bros, this one is on you all.
You’ve posted a good argument to a discussion that we are not currently having in this thread. You may need to take a little break from Lemmy.
Think of the kids.
But don’t do anything.
“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.”
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
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.
Removed by mod
Revisiting and damn I made a good call to turn off notifications.
My visionary foresight knows no limits
Coward.
Oh, I didn’t realize it was kids hour for neolibs to comment on lemmy.
Well, get your ignorance out now kids, it is gonna hurt less than if you deny it wayyyyy into your adulthood…
sigh
falls asleep on bench
Most of the -ism’s get you here. The only one that doesn’t: Peppa Pigism
‘Isms’, what does that word mean?
Words with the -ism suffix. Like capitalism, authoritarianism, veganism, etc.
So, no named ideas? Only deluzean thought-soup?
Is it cool if im super neitzchean about it, since that doesnt end in ‘ism’?
What about ideas from stirnerism?
It’s stirnerean -doesn’t apply
Generally called -ism.
Ok, but the people at Covenant House aren’t the ones who decided to put the anti-homeless architecture in place.
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters where they might get help finding affordable housing, not to mention help for whatever issues they have going on in their lives. It’s meant to combat the problem of some homeless people choosing to avoid getting help and continue to bury themselves in drugs/alcohol and sleep on things like public benches, where they prevent other people from using them for their intended purpose.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting people to get the help they need and stop being an inconvenience for the rest of their community. Are you against homeless outreach programs too? Do you think people should just be allowed to set up shack wherever they please in public spaces? I’m not trying to pretend that the lack of affordable housing isn’t at the core of the problem, but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street, just to avoid social workers pressuring them to address their problems.
Shelters, even if there was enough space, can be dangerous for vulnerable people, do not allow pets, and rarely provide medium term housing or transitional opportunity.
Anti-homeless architecture simply attempts to push the houseless further away from urban centers, and consequently food kitchens, shelters, and other resources. This is deadly when extreme weather occurs or acute health problems arise.
It actively makes the city more dangerous to those most fucked by society.
As far as “wanting” to live on the street, this is a narrative made up to victim blame and deny empathy. It only needs one or two examples for the false narrative to be cast on the population writ large.
You’re stupid if you think this is the effect anti-homeless architecture is having in the places it’s being implemented. They have very little impact to begin with. I don’t pretend to think that shelters can’t be improved, but if people refuse to utilize the resources we have, we must either come up with new resources or reevaluate our investments in the resources we currently employ.
Imagine trying to spin anti-homeless architecture as pro-homeless.
Hey maybe I’m stupid too, but it seems to me it’d be way fucking easier and cheaper to just put some flyers in a little letterbox attached to the bench advertising the nearest homeless shelter or something, rather than inconveniencing literally everyone who wants to use the bench. But what do I know, I’m probably just stupid
Flyers wouldn’t prevent homeless people from using the bench as a bed, preventing other people from using it for its intended purpose, and would be almost entirely ignored.
Literally anyone using the bench potentially prevents someone else from also using the bench. Why is it a bigger deal when it’s a homeless person doing the using? Also, I’m sure there are other more attention grabbing options than a flyer, if we use our imaginations a little bit. Why is your focus on prevention and not education/outreach anyways?
Literally anyone using the bench potentially prevents someone else from also using the bench. Why is it a bigger deal when it’s a homeless person doing the using?
If the homeless person was just sitting on the bench, it wouldn’t be an issue. The bench features we’re talking about aren’t designed to prevent people from sitting on them; they’re designed to prevent people from lying down on them comfortably, thereby taking up more space and using the bench for a purpose it was not intended.
You chided me for calling someone else stupid, so I’m trying to be nicer, but I honestly don’t feel like I should have to explain this to you.
Why is your focus on prevention and not education/outreach anyways?
As I’ve said in other comments, I support outreach attempts as well. My focus is on this prevention technique because it’s the topic of the thread.
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters
Umm no… anti-homeless architecture isn’t meant to encourage people to go to homeless shelters, it’s meant to make it inconvenient to be homeless where “rich people” might have to see and acknowledge you. Its goal is to make the problem easier to ignore not drive people to get help.
but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street
How about we get there first and then you can hand wring about any of these supposed people who are left?
Fuck you.
Ah yes, petty insults
The leftist huckster’s crutch
Most charities are just scams. And yeah they might do some good, but charity is a symptom of failure. We are byproduct of our environment.
We got a figure out a way to remove first past the post.
There are really at least 3 groups, not liberals and conservatives.
There are progressives, neoliberals, and fascists.
Progressives believe the government exists to help all people.
Neoliberals say people should not be descriminated against, but wealth segregation is fine
Fascists are, well, fascists.
This post isn’t very region specific but I assume you’re talking about the USA.
Steps:
-
Vote DNC, Promote DNC, Volunteer DNC
-
DNC ammends constitution to reverse the Citizens United Decision, removing money from politics.
-
DNC ensures fair districting and proportional representation
-
People now have the power to enact real meaningful change
Simultaneously:
-
Promote FairVote, educate people door to door and on the streets, buy ad space if you can
-
Protect local broadcast infrastructure and donate to forums where people discuss these issues to keep them running
-
Utilize Artwork to get people’s attention on these issues.
Its unpopular, but its actionable and helps give space to further grow our progressive movement.
Tankies disagree, but don’t put forth a real adgenda. Such unserious group.
-
A liberal didn’t build that bench.
What makes you think that? Do these not exist in blue states?
Because that bench was deliberately designed to discourage people from sitting there. To make people miserable. So which political party LOVES to be pointlessly cruel?
Both? 17.8 billion dollars to murder children with seems pretty pointlessly cruel to me. All jokes aside, are you not seeing these in the blue states? They don’t have these in New York? Or are you saying conservatives are sneaking in and building these when the democrats aren’t watching?
I’m a side sleeper. I can sleep on this bench. Given the other half of the government would get rid of the bench altogether, this is a good compromise. Now if you want to get rid of the divider altogether, the fascist side of the government needs to be thoroughly and consistently beaten. That’s just the system. You can make an argument that the “ideal” left is incompetent too for always losing.
So leftism is about wanting more comfortable public benches for the homeless to sleep on, while liberalism is about not wanting people to be homeless at all?
Do you ever get tired of needing to be outraged by everything all of the time and just want to be in a society where people actually work to improve things rather than just expressing impotent outrage? Ah but that would require doing work and leftists don’t want to do any work or they might be screamed at by other leftists for being “liberal.”
Fuck you.
LOL
You didn’t need to write that, everyone already knew you were a douche.
LMAO
Anybody who uses “literally” to mean anything but “literally”: a) needs to be caned, b) literally has no valuable opinions.
As someone who studies the english language, No ❤️
Wow so you have no heart? Figures, person who can’t use english the way I have arbitrarily decided it should be used based on other the word farts of people who are suffocatingly similar in lack of imagination to me.
Who is Merriam-Webster? Some woke billionaire?
https://apnews.com/article/california-newsom-homeless-61ebe5b2a732323989c8885899f8d929
For anyone saying that the democrats are bad for the homeless, please look at this.
Wow. I remember the way the right wing propaganda machine tried to spin that into a story of total cruelty. At the time, I assumed their version of events was bs, but never really looked into what the dem’s were actually doing. Converting old motels into homes for homeless people is an absolute no-brainer.
Why is this stuff being blamed on liberals and not conservatives all of a sudden? I feel like Trump and the right really succeeded in making you all hate each other while they run off with the country.
In my country at least the conservatives pull this shit, and if anything the liberals go to the other extreme too much, which is “just let homeless people make shanty towns in parks and subways it’s their right” both are stupid but one is very clearly worse in a mora sense
By your logic, anyone from Australia would say the literal exact opposite. Let’s not forget what Liberal parties around the world are like.
That being said, in the US there are no elected center left candidates except maybe two or three. Elected Democrats—liberals, usually—are just as traitor lunatic as right wingers when it comes to anti homeless designs.
The fact that you talk about “the other extreme” without even a hint of self reflection is troublesome at best. The other “extreme” is called housing, son.
Did an American just question my logic? You guys are kinda deranged and politically toxic
I’ll spell it out for you so you can join in on enjoying why your comment was particularly hilarious. You created the very narrow spectrum this post was made to ridicule: from far right (“conservative”) to right wing (“liberal”). You never even considered that it is only right wing to refuse to provide housing for people!
In leftist spaces, the word liberal often has a different connotation more focused on economic liberalism.
They don’t usually feel the need to clarify, and everyone gets mad. It must be incredibly fun to be an asshole these days.
Conservatives wouldn’t build the bench.
Free public spaces don’t encourage people to go in to a shop hard enough. You wanna sit down? Starbucks has chairs. Want a sip of water, go buy a bottle.
Can I just say I used to live in a country with shanty towns and it sucks, it’s a shit show. Why would anyone want that? Slapping tiny homes on city parks isn’t a solution it’s just stupid
I was referring to like, parks, and town squares. Town squares are pretty rare in the US
U.s is weird in that you can go from state to state and it feels like completely different countries, some are gorgeous and well kept and others are straight up third world
How is this liberalism?
Liberalism is a political-economic ideology that gives a friendly face to capitalism. While market discipline enforces inhumane measures like a park bench that prevents homeless people from sleeping on it, simultaneously the same society produces the friendly face “solution” of a small, overburdened charity organization to help homeless people.
So the state, which has the authority to enforce public park design, or, you know, regulate housing, won’t help. The liberal solution to systemic social inequity is charity.
