You must log in or register to comment.
They are not for nothing the country with the happiest people on the planet.
Of course our country is the happiest when all the severely unhappy people kill themselves. Also our current government is garbage and has several Nazis among its ranks. There is a brilliant editorial about the subject in English, this is the first that came to my mind: https://www.mtvuutiset.fi/artikkeli/david-mac-dougall-about-press-freedom-is-finland-sleepwalking-into-orbanisation-crucial-moment-for-orpo/8733706
The garbage government seems to be not exclusive to Finland though. Concerning nevertheless.
There is no good government. You either have direct democracy or bad government.
What’s your opinion on switzerlands mixed system?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Switzerland
Better then representitve democray, worse then fully direct democracy.
To be honest, when you have half of the year filled with such long nights and it is generally cold, depression isn’t really going to be as rare as in some more sunny countries.
As for the nazzis, yeah, there is a trend in that. I think many voters get racist because of capitalism gets them in difficult economic situation and they fear migrants will take their jobs. And migrants are there in the first place because their regions got destroyed by wars for oil and CIA funded terrorist groups and global warming. So both wars and global warming are due to oil companies .And both difficult economic situations of the citizens and prioritization of profit for oil companies are due to capitalism. So overall, this is simply how capitalism works. It is a feature, not a bug. Without getting rid of capitalism, we will never be able to solve these issues.
A lot of homeless people choose to be homeless. I remember I was talking to a homeless in downtown Los Angeles and he told me he used to be a housing contractor and was a millionaire. He said he preferred the street because he likes the drugs and likes to harass women with impunity. I was also told by other homeless that they don’t like the housing projects and prefer being outside.
Edit: you can downvote me all you want but this is my experience. Sure there are many that want to be in homes but they also want no strings attached honestly for free like if they are babies.
That sounds like an excuse for him. He is a drug addict, he doesn’t really have a choice. First you get people of the streets, then you give them treatment for drugs. People in high stress situations are far more likely to get and stay addicted.
Somehow, treating vulnerable people with dignity by helping them out without strings attached helps our society overall. Who would’ve thought.
But conservatism requires a lesser people to scapegoat and oppress. Could we perhaps criminalize homelessness, and instead of housing we imprison them, so I feel satisfied that they’re being punished for their god given misfortune?
It is ironic that you are scapegoating republicans for this political failure of liberals, who also support the policies that are the cause of these issues.
Liberals also support prioritization of private property laws over personal living standards.
Only socialists support prioritizing human well-being and socialism is a bad word in the US.
What happens when those people leave the housing provided and leave because they want their freedom to move around and be on the street again?
That is perfectly fine. You don’t need to force people to live in a house if they don’t want to. But kinda hard not to want to be in a warm house during freezing Finland winters.
But they didn’t solve it. They are doing something but there are still homeless people. Looks like their plan of action is definitely better though.
I don’t know the exact way they are enforcing this, but if there are still homeless people then either there are some preconditions to apply or people want to be homeless or government can’t afford to house everyone.
In the first case, preconditions shouldn’t exist, everyone deserves to not freeze to death. In the second case, there is no real problem, if someone doesn’t want to live in a house, than they should be allowed to not live in a house. And in third case, you can’t have millioners and billioners and tell the country you just don’t have money to house the homeless, tax them and build homes.
Different take on the bench. The dividers allows for the pregnant and the disabled to sit. Which I believe is more important than letting some homeless sleep on that particular bench.
You can have those arm handles at the ends of benches without being dividers, accommodating both, people with movement problems and homeless people who need a spot to sleep.
So you’re supposed to sit on the homeless person as if they were some piece of cloth?
Ok.
Because as we all know, without dividers every bench in the city would have a homeless person sleeping on it 24 hours a day non-stop, never allowing anyone to sit down ever again.
No they won’t. They will only sleep there the exact moment someone with a disability isn’t nearby. They can sense people in need. So they wake up and leave the premises. Right?
This comment section is literally insane.
Damn, you hate homeless people so much, you’re using pregnancy and disabled people as an excuse. Just say you don’t like homeless people, it’s easier
Incredible cognitive decay. Case study right here. Weaponized degenerative genes.
I actually believe in housing the homeless. And making sure infrastructure is available with bare minimum annoyance to the average person.
I live in a country often praised by leftist ideologist in the US. You eat posts like this as cocaine glazed meth.
You are not able to carry two thoughts at the same time. Pure fuel for the conservatists in your country.
Dawg, slow down for a minute.
In your first comment, you say the extra armrests are there to keep “some homeless” (not even a homeless PERSON) off the bench for disabled individuals. You’re saying that benches should have these installed because seating disabled people is more important than letting “some homeless” use it for a night’s rest.
When others point out that a bench with armrests at the ends and no dividers could be used by both groups, you say “bUt YoU hAvE tO SiT oN tHe hOmELeSs” as if 2 people can’t use a bench at the same time. It’s a bench, not a chair, that’s the whole point. What are you even arguing here, that if homeless people are allowed to use benches that they’ll all be occupied, and they all will refuse to move, and we’ll have to sit on the unhoused? Absolutely preposterous.
And then, when all this is pointed out to you, you say the rest of us have “degenerative” genes and can’t hold 2 thoughts at the same time. Really? That’s straight up far right rhetoric, bringing up the inferior genes shit.
Yes, unhoused people should absolutely have a place to go, but we don’t need to build our cities to be hostile towards them.
TLDR: Go the fuck outside, get some help, go for a walk, call your mom, hell, even go talk to a homeless person, touch grass. I’m done with Lemmy for today, you should be too.
Where would an extra thicc bbw sit on that bench? It’s a hate crime, I say!
Isaiah 3
14 The Lord will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses.
15 What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord God of hosts.
Leviticus 26: 14-18.
God of wrath and murder. /S
