this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
197 points (97.6% liked)

News

29377 readers
3463 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] uuldika@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

my unpopular opinion: homeless encampments in the US are a result of housing becoming unaffordable.

I'm not saying most people ended up in tent cities because they couldn't afford rent. usually people will sleep in their cars, find a spot in a shelter if one's available, crash with relatives etc. at least here (Seattle) most of those who live in big tent cities are homeless because of mental illness: drug addiction and/or psychosis.

but serious addiction isn't new. where did addicts live in the '80s? crack houses! before real estate turned into gold, there was plenty of mold-infested, aabestos-ridden, lead-painted substandard housing left abandoned or rented cheaply by slumlords. junkies could sleep there.

now, most of those buildings have been torn down and luxury condos rebuilt in their place, at least in the big cities.

I'm not pro-crack den. the old buildings were health hazards. but junkies can't afford the upscale housing that replaced them. they can barely afford tents.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Trimatrix@lemmy.world 59 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Surely banning homeless encampments will solve the homelessness problem.

[–] NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 day ago
  1. Create for profit prisons tantamount to slavery
  2. Make homelessness illegal
  3. Destroy the economy and make everybody homeless
  4. PROFIT
[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Next, we should ban heart disease and cancer...

[–] NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago

It's harder to work in the mines with those

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Nah, let’s just keep it the way it is and keep the poors illegal, I mean, I feel bad for people with heart disease, if they have health insurance.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 day ago
[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 76 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Ok sure.

While you're at it, allow cities to commandeer vacancies over 3 months to house the unhoused.

Or is the point to put the squeeze on folks without options or resources to move up economically without providing any solution.

[–] lupusblackfur@lemmy.world 48 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Or is the point to put the squeeze on folks without options or resources to move up economically without providing any solution.

Given Newsom's swing toward the hard right, I'm going with this choice...

And, fuck Newsom. 🤦‍♀️ 🤷‍♂️ 🖕

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Perhaps we have a brainslug infestation in progress?

Would explain a lot actually...

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

My money's on more Russian influence.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

They don't want them to move up they want them to move out

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] andyburke@fedia.io 44 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yo, fuck this guy - pivoting to the right? Fuck off.

[–] Marn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Title is a bit missleading. He's also setting out $3billion for homeless facilities. Better than nothing, he'll probably criminalize homelessness even more than it already is at the same time.

I doubt the $3 billion will do much to reverse the damage California has done with their prison machine, cost of living crisis, and under funded public services. Unless they address the underlying issues the problems are not going to go away.

[–] Tire@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

Funding is easy to lose down the road but laws against the homeless will sure be there for decades to come.

[–] Doctor_Satan@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah that $3 billion won't do squat. California spent $24 billion over a five year period and didn't track any of the money, how it was spent, or the outcomes. It's a safe bet that most of the money went to contractors charging extortionate fees for services while providing almost nothing in return, and probably quite a bit landing in the pockets of local politicians. It was basically a big scam to further enrich a bunch of greedy parasites. A few low-level idiots were charged with fraud and embezzlement of like $400k, but that doesn't even scratch the surface of corruption involved in that whole scheme.

[–] comtact@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

California will be fine. They just need to succeed.

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago (2 children)

So - when did Newson have a Fetterman-like stroke?

[–] Gregg@lemm.ee 14 points 2 days ago

When he realized he could get a bunch of money capitulating to and sane washing hard right wingers with a podcast.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Jesus , this guy looking to join Trump's team?

[–] Sundiata@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

his ex; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhFks_9faQY

his current wife; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Siebel_Newsom

Siebel Newsom was registered as a Republican until 2008, before re-registering as No Party Preference. Prior to registering as an independent voter, she accidentally registered with the far-right American Independent Party, before correcting her party to "decline to state".

I think yes, yes he is.

[–] LMurch@thelemmy.club 7 points 2 days ago (7 children)

I came here to say this sounds like something Trump or DeSantis would do. Disappointing it is Newsome. We need leaders with solutions, not bigger prisons. (I'm not sure what I would do, but I'm also not the Gov of California hoping to be in the Dem shortlist in 2028).

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (5 children)

He has tried nothing useful and is all out of ideas.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] AmazingAwesomator@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

we need the infrastructure for the unhoused to be housed. where does he expect the homeless to go?

[–] Gregg@lemm.ee 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The sun beams down on a brand-new day

No more welfare tax to pay

Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light

Jobless millions whisked away

At last, we have more room to play

All systems go to kill the poor tonight

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UpperBroccoli@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 2 days ago

Attacking the very poorest of society with all his energy. What a piece of work.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Ladies and Gentlemen, our 48th President (whether we want him or not)...

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not going to happen. Not because the conservative Democrats won't be able to hoodwink enough primary voters to believe the highest priority is accommodating what they think their shittiest neighbor could (but will not) tolerate, but because in doing so they'll lose the voters they actually need to win and Don Jr. will ascend to the throne.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 8 points 2 days ago

If you want to get rid of homeless encampments, how about making sure people have a safe place to stay at night?

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I'm very liberal on 95% of issues, but if there is one issue I lean conservative it's homelessness. I want them to get the help they need, I support programs to help them, but I do not want to see a homeless encampment s take over public parks or other areas. I don't want the trash and safety issues near where I live and near my family.

I know this will get me dumped on my the ultra leftists here, but I didn't think my feelings are unreasonable.

[–] toomanypancakes@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Banning homelessness doesn't give people a place to stay. It's criminalizing being poor.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

It's also a tragedy-of-the-commons type issue. Nobody else can use the park if they are camping there. There are legitimate safety concerns due to the mental health and drug issues that are prevalent in the homeless. To pretend these aren't real issues is stupid.

I'm being honest here. This is an issue that is a challenge to solve, but I still don't want a bunch of homeless people in my neighborhood. I'd like to find a solution and I'm not afraid of my tax money is going to help them, but tent encampments are not the solution IMHO..

[–] Gabadabs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 23 hours ago

Your feelings are unreasonable. Banning homeless encampments is criminalization of existing in public for people who do not have anywhere else to go. Homeless people are not a danger to you, rather they are some of the most vulnerable people in our society - and people don't want them to be able to sleep, or cook or eat, or anything in public. Where do you want them to go? Shelters do not have room for everyone and are a massive risk for people that do make it in.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

So you're liberal until it inconveniences you?

How about instead of outlawing homelessness, we created a housing system for them. Then we can talk about moving them out of parks.

[–] JTskulk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

You want them to get the help they need, that's the opposite of conservative even without the support for programs.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

California is a garden of Eden,

A paradise to live in or see

but believe it or not

you won't find it so hot

if you ain't got the doe ray me.

[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Crazy how California is speed-running a transition from liberal to left to Authoritarian almost as fast as the Federal government is transitioning from conservative to right to Fascism.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

What other examples can you give? As a California resident I think your comment is bullshit.

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Newsom was always a slimy neolib. He was just the lesser evil. The same story plays out constantly all over the US thanks to our broken two-right-wing-parties system, in which both parties are owned and operated by self-serving billionaires.

[–] VirgilMastercard@reddthat.com 6 points 2 days ago

Sweep all problems under the carpet instead of trying to solve the root problem.

load more comments
view more: next ›