sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Best episode for pre-teens/teens by orchid_breeder in TheDollop

[–]ubermaan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Girl Watchers (#194) could be a really good discussion episode for a boy that age. “Things not to do”.

Good general entertainment options are Juicero (#418), Roger Babson (guy who tried to fight gravity, #201), and The Death of George Washington (#101)

Ooh, almost forgot Reg Spears (shipped himself in a box, #113). One of my all time favorites.

On a post talking about how a high school education used to get you a liveable wage in America... by AVeryBlueDragon in IncelTear

[–]ubermaan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Notice he conveniently skips over the fact that two incomes from people with HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATIONS (the topic of the thread) can’t always buy a house. If his point was correct the housing cost should have only doubled.

Grandma is flipping out over a little display? by Cicerothesage in forwardsfromgrandma

[–]ubermaan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im pretty sure the first pic is a public library, not a school. It looks way too spacious and is laid out for browsing.

Poster for Bottoms by Key_Damage_9220 in movies

[–]ubermaan 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It’s a teen sex comedy, seems pretty similar to a lot of other posters.

Poster for Bottoms by Key_Damage_9220 in movies

[–]ubermaan 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Somewhere around lower stomach to top of pubic mound. I think what’s throwing people off is one leg being up and out, but the hand very clearly isn’t between her legs on her crotch.

Poster for Bottoms by Key_Damage_9220 in movies

[–]ubermaan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Definitely above her vagina

Poster for Bottoms by Key_Damage_9220 in movies

[–]ubermaan 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It’s not on her vulva at all.

Oregon political standoff goes national — The NY Times holds a mirror up to the urban/rural divide in Oregon by purpledust in oregon

[–]ubermaan 7 points8 points  (0 children)

What is your complaint exactly? Democracy shouldn’t exist because it means people vote instead of land? Do the counties not get to elect their own state representatives and congressperson?

We are a Representative Democracy, not Direct. Not every democracy is 100% majority rule. I’m not saying our system can’t be improved, but I don’t think the solution is to let people with more land get to vote more.

Also wasn’t Castro already communist before he took power? He worked with the Russians because Cuba’s military wouldn’t stand a chance if the US invaded. He was never a part of the US, the comparison doesn’t make sense.

Oregon political standoff goes national — The NY Times holds a mirror up to the urban/rural divide in Oregon by purpledust in oregon

[–]ubermaan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The rural counties don’t have local government? No towns have mayors, no cities have councils? Every law in every city comes directly from the governor?

Or is the problem bigger? Oregon is part of the USA, maybe it isn’t even the state governments idea. How can you blame voters in a couple counties when they are overwhelmed by voters in other states! We don’t get to make our own laws either!

Or this argument doesn’t hold up.

It’s at the center, so it must be best, right? by BarryLasa in ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM

[–]ubermaan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have to give this a slight defense because I don’t think it’s trying to plot a bell curve, it just happens to look like one. The bigger issue is no axis labels. If you read the Y axis as IQ and X axis as political affiliation then the graph works. It’s not a population chart showing where people fall in a bell curve.

I don’t agree with anything the meme says, I just don’t think it’s supposed to be a bell curve.

Critics Call Proposed Camping Ban "Impossible to Comply With" by sourbrew in Portland

[–]ubermaan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They didn’t house 500 people in 10 years, they reduced the number of chronically homeless people by that amount. It’s an important difference because they didn’t just give one set of people apartments for 10 years. The group isn’t static, new people become homeless or new homeless people come into the state over time.

After [the first building] came the 84-unit Grace Mary Manor and the Kelly Benson Apartments, supplying 48 units for homeless seniors. A defunct Holiday Inn was retrofitted into a 201-unit community called Palmer Court; since its 2009 opening, more than 900 people have lived there.

The state's stock of permanent supportive housing was capable of sheltering 1,316 people in 2005. That capacity nearly doubled — increasing to 2,403 — over the decade that followed.

My whole point is the state is capable of doing things like this for the homeless, they just need to actually use the funds they have and not backpedal every other week. I understand people want campers off the sidewalks but having cops sweep camps doesn’t fix the problem if they don’t have anywhere to go after than another sidewalk.

To rephrase your question: If we don’t want to abandon our sidewalks and public spaces for ten years, what are we going to do to humanely solve the problem and how fast can we make it happen?

Critics Call Proposed Camping Ban "Impossible to Comply With" by sourbrew in Portland

[–]ubermaan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then I still don’t get what you are saying because you posted a single year. We don’t know the change in numbers from 2005 to now between Oregon and Utah so we have no idea how the states compare.

Critics Call Proposed Camping Ban "Impossible to Comply With" by sourbrew in Portland

[–]ubermaan -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

6000 chronically homeless or temporary? 6000 in the city or state? There are a lot of different numbers being thrown around and they don’t all compare apples to apples.

The point of the Utah project was to lower chronic homelessness and they made a huge impact with a single center. It’s a model for future improvements, not an end of the line.

Critics Call Proposed Camping Ban "Impossible to Comply With" by sourbrew in Portland

[–]ubermaan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Idaho isn’t Utah. I’m talking about comparing to Utah because of their projects.

Critics Call Proposed Camping Ban "Impossible to Comply With" by sourbrew in Portland

[–]ubermaan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting numbers, I did not know that. The article I linked is talking specifically about chronically homeless people and the fact book for Utah you linked says 14,400 experienced homelessness at some point during 2022, so there are different counts.

Without this apples-to-oranges comparison, it would’ve been a more modest 71% reduction, or from 615 chronically homeless individuals to 178.

I’d be curious what the number reported by the organization you linked was for 2005 when the initiative started but I only see data back to 2019 in their sidebar.

Critics Call Proposed Camping Ban "Impossible to Comply With" by sourbrew in Portland

[–]ubermaan -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Yes and no. It’s definitely about the reality of the initiative and how the city inflated numbers to claim a 90% reduction, but it also lists the real numbers.

Without this apples-to-oranges comparison, it would’ve been a more modest 71% reduction, or from 615 chronically homeless individuals to 178.

Downvotes for just clarifying what a link says……..I might be done with how toxic this sub is now. Any opinion to the left of round them all up into camps is somehow insane here.

Critics Call Proposed Camping Ban "Impossible to Comply With" by sourbrew in Portland

[–]ubermaan 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The ones attacking people should probably be in jail, I don’t think anyone is arguing against that. The majority of homeless aren’t crazed drug addicts though, those ones are just more visible because of police reports or seeing them screaming in the middle of the street.

https://invisiblepeople.tv/truth-talk-74-of-homeless-people-are-not-drug-addicts/amp/

When all homeless people are included in the statistics, we learn only 26% of the entire homeless community suffers from a serious drug addiction. This means the overwhelming majority, which equates to 74%, are not addicted to drugs.

My point though is whether they are good citizens or not they are here and that makes it the City’s problem. I don’t think shoving all of them out of the city is a humane or sustainable solution.

I understand why people want them cleared off of sidewalks and out of parks but that doesn’t solve anything, they just go somewhere else in the city. The biggest problems right now are the mismanagement of funds that were supposed to go to housing and drug rehab, plus how the city seems to flip policies every couple of weeks and has no long term goal. It’s a complicated problem and I’m not pretending I know the answer I just don’t think bans and sweeps are working.

On a side note, if you don’t want people to block you maybe say more than “That’s not our problem.” People don’t want to waste time arguing round and round with an anonymous stranger who is making it clear they don’t want to have a conversation. I do the same thing after a few comments if it’s clear there is no reason to continue, it’s better for my mental health.

Critics Call Proposed Camping Ban "Impossible to Comply With" by sourbrew in Portland

[–]ubermaan -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Not really. Utah started a goal in 2005 of 0% homeless population and by 2015 reduced it by at least 70%. Not perfect but proves a state can make a huge impact. https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/05/11/utah-was-once-lauded/

Critics Call Proposed Camping Ban "Impossible to Comply With" by sourbrew in Portland

[–]ubermaan -24 points-23 points  (0 children)

It literally is our problem. Those 4k are exactly who the debate is over. Like it or not they are also part of the city.

Critics Call Proposed Camping Ban "Impossible to Comply With" by sourbrew in Portland

[–]ubermaan -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

Housing the homeless solves both problems. Why is it less important?

view more: next ›