Don't worry everyone, I'm sure someone somewhere is worse and that makes this okay somehow.
How can it be that people don't realize how badly faked this is and what position it is trying to sneak through?
You mean you don't believe that Hostile architecture exists? Or are you just saying that this specific example doesn't?
This specific example is badly photoshopped
That's not really the point, though.
Edit to elaborate: Whether or not this specific one is real, it perfectly illustrates the hypocrisy of trans ally neoliberals who persecute and punish unhoused people for existing near them.
If there were so many examples of this in the real world, then you wouldn’t need to photoshop one.
You do to make it fun.
But your statement suggests you don't think its a thing.
The French Revolution was well documented and people still enjoy A Tale of Two Cities
Are you saying we don't need any fiction - novels, tv, movies, jokes, comics, memes... because there exists non-fiction versions?
I think you and the others trying to pass off the same idea don’t seem to understand the problem here. It’s not that you can’t have satire, or fiction that acts as a social commentary. It’s that all of the examples you are mentioning aren’t trying to pass themselves off as reality . Nobody reads A Tale of Two Cities and thinks that it is literal. Or A Modest Proposal. This here is trying to pass itself off as real and as soon as it gets called out for it, the choir shows up to say “Oh, so we can’t have satire anymore”.
I genuinely don't think anyone thinks these are trans-inclusive homeless spikes.
At best they got painted bright colors for visibility and they accidentally used the trans flag
at arguably more best, someone decided to vandalize them as an act of political commentary.
"It's often said that the most potent form of rhetoric is the contradictory form" - i just made that up :)
Again, it's an illustration of the hypocrisy. It doesn't need to literally exist as a physical object in order to make the point.
It's a fabrication of a hypocrisy. If the hypocrisy is real, you wouldn’t need to fabricate it.
Nice try. It is deception. Satire isn’t intended to be deceptive. This post was.
From the description on Wikipedia:
Satire is found in many artistic forms of expression, including internet memes, literature, plays, commentary, music, film and television shows, and media such as lyrics.
Nice try. It is deception. Satire isn’t intended to be deceptive. This post was.
I think I understand. You think it is misinformation. But it would only be misinformation if the underlying message isn’t true. This might help.
It depends on whether the viewer thinks this represents the hypocrisy of trans ally neoliberals who persecute and punish unhoused people for existing near them.
It’s like this real photo from the Black Lives Matter protests:
It was criticized at the time for the hypocrisy of recuperating the protests. If the photo was faked, would it be any less true?
I mean the hypocrisy really exists, but you're right that this particularly egregious and shocking example is likely a total fabrication.
Sometimes fiction and altered objects depict abstract concept better than real physical objects do and neoliberals tend not to say the quiet parts loudly like the fascist party on the other side of the aisle has increasingly been doing in recent years.
Do you not recognize that this is deceitful? I understand how fiction can present allegories to demonstrate real world themes. But this isn’t that. This is meant to portray reality and real life hypocrisy but is not actually real.
If the hypocrisy is true, why the deception?
If the hypocrisy is true, why the deception
Because the hypocrites do an effective job at explaining away and obfuscating their hypocrisy. This makes it clear in an way that literal reality doesn't.
The rich people weren't literally eating the babies of poor people when Jonathan Swift wrote A Modest Proposal, but that doesn't mean that his point about their callous disregard for those less fortunate was fraudulent.
This is basically visual satire.
Satire is not deceitful. You’re not meant to read A Modest Proposal and think rich people are eating poor babies. You’re meant to recognize the allegory and what it says about our real world.
This post is not satire. It is meant to deceive you into believing it is a real photo.
You're being way too rigid and literal. That's not how it is.
This post is not satire. It is meant to deceive you into believing it is a real photo.
Says you based on faulty reasoning leading to a seemingly willful misunderstanding of the point.
get fucked with that bullshit. trans allies aren't out there persecuting anyone. jfc, where do you come up with this bullshit?
Tell that to the homeless people forced to play frogger across the interstate near where I live. And the entire working class neighborhood whose flood risk was ignored by the city for decades until this year because it got mostly destroyed.
Camping bans are persecution. Building shiny stuff instead of taking care of people is persecution. It's not bold or in your face but it's real.
Bruh what the fuck did trans people/trans allies have to do with the circumstances that created these issues? Stop using them as a scapegoat.
Anti homelessness is very real and very obvious but I've never seen a fucking pride parade advocating for the removal of safe spaces for the unhoused. I do regularly see politicians advocating for that shit though.
They pass laws protecting the rights of LGBTQ people (Which is awesome). And then they pass laws to criminalize homelessness while they profit off the current state of real estate. (Not awesome)
In my experience, the politicians that are out there passing laws to criminalize homelessness are usually the ones that are more outspoken against the rights of LGBTQ people. In any case, trans people's existence has nothing to do with anti homeless laws. Stop trying to conflate the two.
They are both oppressed minority groups under capitalism. This is utilized under the class system to make oppressed minority groups within the system compete with each other for rights.
To go further, hypothetically, the Democrats may advocate for rights for dog lovers while making laws against the cat fans, while Republicans might advocate for the cat fans, while making laws against dog lovers. In that way, the government makes citizens vie for rights while diminishing class unity.
Well yeah, that's the point. They're two different issues and people who support trans people do not necessarily support other oppressed groups. I've been trying to point that out this entire time.
I don’t think they understand that upstream of these intersectionalities is an indictment of capitalism.
"damn, rich people exist. Ow, fuck, i just fell off a bridge and broke all of my bones" - you rn.
What are you saying?
it's a haha funny about the conflation being made in the original statement.
I'm just smashing two things together, and saying that one caused the other, much like they did.
Then you need to re read something in the chain.
no i understand the point they were making, they stated it in an utterly shit way. That left shit tons of room up for interpretation.
the hypocrisy? The hypocrisy of who? The fucking politicians that fund this type of shit?
WHO ARE WE MAKING FUN OF
The hypocrisy of who? The fucking politicians that fund this type of shit?
WHO ARE WE MAKING FUN OF
The liberals, politician and civilian alike, who support LGBTQ+ people's right to exist without harassment but also are in favor of persecuting and punishing homeless people for existing near them.
Like for example New York Mayor and once a cop always a cop Eric Adams who is in favor of both marriage equality and (not much short of) hunting the homeless for sport.
it's almost like it's not that hard to just, have a good opinion.
True, but it's evidently FAR too hard for anyone with power to not have at least one truly awful one, based on the fact that almost none of them manage it..
to be fair, i think statistically, given the amount of opinions that it is possible to hold, that you are pretty likely to hold at least one objectively shitty opinion.
True, but I'm talking specifically of consequential opinions that profoundly affect the lives of others, not small stuff like not liking black liquorice 😉
i suppose so, but even then, there are just a lot of opinions you can hold. Politics being a massive one. For example, in my opinion, i believe that having any sort of party affiliation is just objectively wrong.
I mean that someone saw hostile architecture and then decided to photoshop a trans flag over it for political reasons.
We, as strangers, will never know their exact motivation, but I think if their idea was a message regarding the unfair treatment of economically disadvantaged people or neoliberal hypocrisy, there would be much better ways to communicate the issue, that don't involve something that can easily be construed as anti-trans messaging.
It's a bit vibes based, but you know.... people ain't robots, and even if that wasn't the original intent, that's how the message comes across. And I'd rather have a better, more poignant statement that's worth repeating, rather than this, perhaps unintentionally, bad one.
Especially because people will take this at face value and there are more photoshopped images just like this, making the whole thing a bit sussy, imo.
Yeah, that's not a reasonable interpretation. Intersectionality and criticism of lack of same is by far the most likely intent behind this picture.
Pretending otherwise kinda seems like grasping at straws to avoid addressing the shortcomings of your favorite neoliberals.
My "favorite neoliberal"?
I'm an entire person, not a single-sided strawman. I edited my reply to also state that I think neolibs suck too, if that helps to unflatten my thoughts on this a bit. And because I think they do.
I'd also like to add that I've seen this image and others like it posted in anti-progressive groups by anti-progressive people, instilling exactly the message I explained earlier. Which is why I say the message either isn't clear, or just bad.
I don't feel like I'm "gasping at straws". I feel my argument is somewhat reasonable and I hope my point is a little clearer now.
I have to go back to work now.
I still believe that your interpretation is unreasonable and mine is much more likely regardless of your anecdotal experience in anti-progressive groups, but I apologize for unfairly assuming bad intent on your part. Have a nice day!
Thanks, you too!
If I had to take a guess at the motivations, I think someone saw the spikes as well as the equality sign in the window and took a picture because that's kinda a juxtaposition. But I'm guessing that didn't give enough "zing" that would be noticed as an internet post, so they edited the trans flag on the spikes to make it less subtle.
You’re at the top of my comment chain, so I’m replying to agree with you and take this further.
Whoever photoshopped this and the other one with the park bench that’s floating around is trying to pit liberals against each other by making it seem like fighting for trans rights and fighting to house the unhoused are opposed to each other.
For anyone reading this, don’t fall for it.
Sure, except I'm in California where it is two very different fights. Try reversing any LGBTQ Rights and you'll get tarred and feathered. Suggest the Homeless shouldn't be hunted in the streets and you also get tarred and feathered.
It's like living in reverse land where instead of "fiscal responsibility" and "traditional social values"; we have "fiscal responsibility" and "progressive social values".
That sucks. None of us are free until all of us are free.
Amen to that
people fall for this?
Damn, didn't realize conservatives put that little amount of thought into their political statements.
Literally the best result here is someone goes "yeah, that's politicians for you, pretending to do something, by displaying something, but actually doing something else" If anything, this is basically commentary on how shitty politics is. More than whatever the fuck anyone else thinks it could possibly be.
This air is private property, breathing is not allowed
Ah, I see you are also VerySmart™.
Nice, anti homeless and anti disabled all at once (lack of streetside seating makes getting around challenging for mobility limited people)
And right below a "no human is illegal" poster
Also anti elderly. And anti kids. Although for kids EVERY surface is sitting surface.
This is not anti-homeless. This is anti-idiots sitting on the window sill of the house you live in, making it a gathering place and a nuisance of themselves. A window sill is not a bench in the park.
Great! If the spikes weren't inclusive trans people might feel excluded from the ban of sleeping on them
/s
We fell in love in a homeless place...
We fell in love in a hooOoomless plaaace...
No human is illegal.
The irony
That, and the painting, might be put there by people protesting the spikes and not necessarily the owners of these spikes.
Ah yes of course!
"Women's rights are human rights." **
** Doesn't include homeless women.
LGBT identity is being exploited by assholes
This is a photoshop. It’s not real. It’s old enough that it’s not even “AI.”
Cool, I didn’t know
Shit like this should be spray painted over
insert BMW Nazi logo beside the BMW trans logo
They think LGBT is benefited by having more visibility. In reality it puts them center stage for anti-LGBT rhetoric and the world is more antagonistic. In the 90s nobody cared about the gays.
It was illegal to be gay in my western country in the early 90s. Your opinion is wrong and sucks ass
In the 90s nobody cared about the gays.
I know a guy who was put in the hospital in 1997 because some dudes thought he was gay.
You both have a point and have a not point at the same time. LGBT is benefitted by more visibility, because it being denormalized harms people who are gay/trans/etc. In the 90s, gay marriage was illegal, participating in gay culture outside of specific establishments means risking confrontation with cops, and someone's kid being gay was every parent's worst nightmare (it still is for some people nowadays unfortunately). More visibility and pushing for more rights and the same integration into society that the "in-group" has naturally means that people who are higher in the hierarchy will throw a tantrum and start committing hate crimes and attacking the group and using them as a scapegoat. But making others angry is necessary if you want a disprivileged group to have the same accessibility and rights as the ruling group.
*on the trans-inclusive anti-homeless spikes
Soon they will sell inclusive bullets in Texas
My trans homies and I would probably throw a brick through that window... just saying.
Okay, in reality we'd talk to the owner first and explain why this is shitty behavior. The brick is plan B.
Plan B is for Brick. Primary plan is Plan Ы.
Plan A is for axeplain
Got it, throw axe through window at shop owner.
Did you attach the note axeplaining why these spikes are awful?
You think they don't know? This is Photoshop, but the point would have been the meme.
I mean yeah, probably they would know, but it wouldn't hurt to talk to em. Either way, specific negative feedback from potential customers gives them at least a small incentive to change.. not that it'd probably be significant enough to make a difference in this case. But hypothetically, if enough people did get upset about it and it hurt the business' bottom line, I'd want them to know the reason.
If nothing else, at least they'll know what the brick is for. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Because it's quite likely that the people who run the store also own the building or something?
Not a chance. This building (and the windowsill and spike strip) are owned by some real estate company and the shop owner (who owns the sticker) is a renter.
Be pissed off at the wealthy elite that's shooing off the homeless, not the shop owner. Totally different people.
This doesn't even have anything to do with homeless people. Homeless people don't sleep on a window sill.
I personally know a few places in my city where people have resorted to putting spikes on their window sills like that. It has everything to do with anti-social people who think someone else's window sill is a perfectly good place to sit around all night, make noise, drink alcohol, do drugs, leave their garbage, damage the property, ...
The spikes are put there out of desperation when talking to people and talking to the police hasn't helped.
Not to interrupt your hate parade against the wealthy, fully on board with that, but most store owners also absolutely hate homeless people around their stores. For somewhat understandable reasons but still.
I mean the reason is that most people will be a bit sketched out by homeless people hanging around your establishment. I've run into quite a few homeless people when living in the city and more times than not they are pretty sketchy individuals, not all but most.
There is a big correlation between homelessness and mental illness, personality disorder, addiction or a combination thereof. So yeah, excuse me if I don't want to deal with the paranoid schizophrenic hobo who's high on god knows what.
I can't speak for the US here, but in most civilized countries there is actually help available for homeless people and enough social systems to ensure that well adjusted people don't end up homeless in the first place. With the homeless that we do have, the difficulty usually lies in reaching them, getting them to accept the help that is available and having them durably make the necessary changes to their life to escape homelessness.
Accepting some of their anti-social behaviors is actually enabling it, and not helping them at all.
"We're so progressive! We like the gays! FUCK OFF YOU DIRTY HOBO! PULL YOURSELF UP BY YOUR BOOT STRAPS!"
A soul for a soul (and that's not how it has to be).
Man that's a new low.
This concept is liberalism at its finest
Specifically the NIMBYest of NIMBY "the solution is to fund the police" neoliberalism. 🖕
Is this one real at least? Because that's a great concrete example of the kind of hypocrisy the op is alluding to
I honestly don't know and still contend that it doesn't matter whether or not it is 🤷
I mean yeah the point is the same, and this is universally awful no matter the colour. I would still like to know if this exact case of lib bs has actually occurred
Turns out it's not:
“Ya’ll, we made a mistake! While rocks r a common [part] of anti-homeless architecture, this particular rock is NOT. It’s a Japanese garden,” said the Coalition On Homeless. “Izakaya Sushi is a valued member of the community and is supportive of its homeless neighbors. We apologize [and] offer deep appreciation to the staff.”
How can it be that people don't realize how badly faked this is and what position it is trying to sneak through?
You mean you don't believe that Hostile architecture exists? Or are you just saying that this specific example doesn't?
This specific example is badly photoshopped
That's not really the point, though.
Edit to elaborate: Whether or not this specific one is real, it perfectly illustrates the hypocrisy of trans ally neoliberals who persecute and punish unhoused people for existing near them.
If there were so many examples of this in the real world, then you wouldn’t need to photoshop one.
You do to make it fun.
But your statement suggests you don't think its a thing.
The French Revolution was well documented and people still enjoy A Tale of Two Cities
Are you saying we don't need any fiction - novels, tv, movies, jokes, comics, memes... because there exists non-fiction versions?
I think you and the others trying to pass off the same idea don’t seem to understand the problem here. It’s not that you can’t have satire, or fiction that acts as a social commentary. It’s that all of the examples you are mentioning aren’t trying to pass themselves off as reality . Nobody reads A Tale of Two Cities and thinks that it is literal. Or A Modest Proposal. This here is trying to pass itself off as real and as soon as it gets called out for it, the choir shows up to say “Oh, so we can’t have satire anymore”.
I genuinely don't think anyone thinks these are trans-inclusive homeless spikes.
At best they got painted bright colors for visibility and they accidentally used the trans flag
at arguably more best, someone decided to vandalize them as an act of political commentary.
"It's often said that the most potent form of rhetoric is the contradictory form" - i just made that up :)
Again, it's an illustration of the hypocrisy. It doesn't need to literally exist as a physical object in order to make the point.
It's a fabrication of a hypocrisy. If the hypocrisy is real, you wouldn’t need to fabricate it.
It’s called satire.
Nice try. It is deception. Satire isn’t intended to be deceptive. This post was.
From the description on Wikipedia:
Satire often utilizes fiction.
Nice try. It is deception. Satire isn’t intended to be deceptive. This post was.
I think I understand. You think it is misinformation. But it would only be misinformation if the underlying message isn’t true. This might help.
It depends on whether the viewer thinks this represents the hypocrisy of trans ally neoliberals who persecute and punish unhoused people for existing near them.
It’s like this real photo from the Black Lives Matter protests:
It was criticized at the time for the hypocrisy of recuperating the protests. If the photo was faked, would it be any less true?
I mean the hypocrisy really exists, but you're right that this particularly egregious and shocking example is likely a total fabrication.
Sometimes fiction and altered objects depict abstract concept better than real physical objects do and neoliberals tend not to say the quiet parts loudly like the fascist party on the other side of the aisle has increasingly been doing in recent years.
Do you not recognize that this is deceitful? I understand how fiction can present allegories to demonstrate real world themes. But this isn’t that. This is meant to portray reality and real life hypocrisy but is not actually real.
If the hypocrisy is true, why the deception?
Because the hypocrites do an effective job at explaining away and obfuscating their hypocrisy. This makes it clear in an way that literal reality doesn't.
The rich people weren't literally eating the babies of poor people when Jonathan Swift wrote A Modest Proposal, but that doesn't mean that his point about their callous disregard for those less fortunate was fraudulent.
This is basically visual satire.
Satire is not deceitful. You’re not meant to read A Modest Proposal and think rich people are eating poor babies. You’re meant to recognize the allegory and what it says about our real world.
This post is not satire. It is meant to deceive you into believing it is a real photo.
You're being way too rigid and literal. That's not how it is.
Says you based on faulty reasoning leading to a seemingly willful misunderstanding of the point.
get fucked with that bullshit. trans allies aren't out there persecuting anyone. jfc, where do you come up with this bullshit?
Tell that to the homeless people forced to play frogger across the interstate near where I live. And the entire working class neighborhood whose flood risk was ignored by the city for decades until this year because it got mostly destroyed.
Camping bans are persecution. Building shiny stuff instead of taking care of people is persecution. It's not bold or in your face but it's real.
Bruh what the fuck did trans people/trans allies have to do with the circumstances that created these issues? Stop using them as a scapegoat.
Anti homelessness is very real and very obvious but I've never seen a fucking pride parade advocating for the removal of safe spaces for the unhoused. I do regularly see politicians advocating for that shit though.
They pass laws protecting the rights of LGBTQ people (Which is awesome). And then they pass laws to criminalize homelessness while they profit off the current state of real estate. (Not awesome)
In my experience, the politicians that are out there passing laws to criminalize homelessness are usually the ones that are more outspoken against the rights of LGBTQ people. In any case, trans people's existence has nothing to do with anti homeless laws. Stop trying to conflate the two.
They are both oppressed minority groups under capitalism. This is utilized under the class system to make oppressed minority groups within the system compete with each other for rights.
To go further, hypothetically, the Democrats may advocate for rights for dog lovers while making laws against the cat fans, while Republicans might advocate for the cat fans, while making laws against dog lovers. In that way, the government makes citizens vie for rights while diminishing class unity.
Well yeah, that's the point. They're two different issues and people who support trans people do not necessarily support other oppressed groups. I've been trying to point that out this entire time.
I don’t think they understand that upstream of these intersectionalities is an indictment of capitalism.
"damn, rich people exist. Ow, fuck, i just fell off a bridge and broke all of my bones" - you rn.
What are you saying?
it's a haha funny about the conflation being made in the original statement.
I'm just smashing two things together, and saying that one caused the other, much like they did.
Then you need to re read something in the chain.
no i understand the point they were making, they stated it in an utterly shit way. That left shit tons of room up for interpretation.
the hypocrisy? The hypocrisy of who? The fucking politicians that fund this type of shit?
WHO ARE WE MAKING FUN OF
The liberals, politician and civilian alike, who support LGBTQ+ people's right to exist without harassment but also are in favor of persecuting and punishing homeless people for existing near them.
Like for example New York Mayor and once a cop always a cop Eric Adams who is in favor of both marriage equality and (not much short of) hunting the homeless for sport.
it's almost like it's not that hard to just, have a good opinion.
True, but it's evidently FAR too hard for anyone with power to not have at least one truly awful one, based on the fact that almost none of them manage it..
to be fair, i think statistically, given the amount of opinions that it is possible to hold, that you are pretty likely to hold at least one objectively shitty opinion.
True, but I'm talking specifically of consequential opinions that profoundly affect the lives of others, not small stuff like not liking black liquorice 😉
i suppose so, but even then, there are just a lot of opinions you can hold. Politics being a massive one. For example, in my opinion, i believe that having any sort of party affiliation is just objectively wrong.
I mean that someone saw hostile architecture and then decided to photoshop a trans flag over it for political reasons.
We, as strangers, will never know their exact motivation, but I think if their idea was a message regarding the unfair treatment of economically disadvantaged people or neoliberal hypocrisy, there would be much better ways to communicate the issue, that don't involve something that can easily be construed as anti-trans messaging.
It's a bit vibes based, but you know.... people ain't robots, and even if that wasn't the original intent, that's how the message comes across. And I'd rather have a better, more poignant statement that's worth repeating, rather than this, perhaps unintentionally, bad one.
Especially because people will take this at face value and there are more photoshopped images just like this, making the whole thing a bit sussy, imo.
Yeah, that's not a reasonable interpretation. Intersectionality and criticism of lack of same is by far the most likely intent behind this picture.
Pretending otherwise kinda seems like grasping at straws to avoid addressing the shortcomings of your favorite neoliberals.
My "favorite neoliberal"?
I'm an entire person, not a single-sided strawman. I edited my reply to also state that I think neolibs suck too, if that helps to unflatten my thoughts on this a bit. And because I think they do.
I'd also like to add that I've seen this image and others like it posted in anti-progressive groups by anti-progressive people, instilling exactly the message I explained earlier. Which is why I say the message either isn't clear, or just bad.
I don't feel like I'm "gasping at straws". I feel my argument is somewhat reasonable and I hope my point is a little clearer now.
I have to go back to work now.
I still believe that your interpretation is unreasonable and mine is much more likely regardless of your anecdotal experience in anti-progressive groups, but I apologize for unfairly assuming bad intent on your part. Have a nice day!
Thanks, you too!
If I had to take a guess at the motivations, I think someone saw the spikes as well as the equality sign in the window and took a picture because that's kinda a juxtaposition. But I'm guessing that didn't give enough "zing" that would be noticed as an internet post, so they edited the trans flag on the spikes to make it less subtle.
You’re at the top of my comment chain, so I’m replying to agree with you and take this further.
Whoever photoshopped this and the other one with the park bench that’s floating around is trying to pit liberals against each other by making it seem like fighting for trans rights and fighting to house the unhoused are opposed to each other.
For anyone reading this, don’t fall for it.
Sure, except I'm in California where it is two very different fights. Try reversing any LGBTQ Rights and you'll get tarred and feathered. Suggest the Homeless shouldn't be hunted in the streets and you also get tarred and feathered.
It's like living in reverse land where instead of "fiscal responsibility" and "traditional social values"; we have "fiscal responsibility" and "progressive social values".
That sucks. None of us are free until all of us are free.
Amen to that
people fall for this?
Damn, didn't realize conservatives put that little amount of thought into their political statements.
Literally the best result here is someone goes "yeah, that's politicians for you, pretending to do something, by displaying something, but actually doing something else" If anything, this is basically commentary on how shitty politics is. More than whatever the fuck anyone else thinks it could possibly be.
I mean I think it's just meant to be a shitpost
This window ledge is private property 🤓
Seating is not all owed.
This air is private property, breathing is not allowed
Ah, I see you are also VerySmart™.
Nice, anti homeless and anti disabled all at once (lack of streetside seating makes getting around challenging for mobility limited people)
And right below a "no human is illegal" poster
Also anti elderly. And anti kids. Although for kids EVERY surface is sitting surface.
This is not anti-homeless. This is anti-idiots sitting on the window sill of the house you live in, making it a gathering place and a nuisance of themselves. A window sill is not a bench in the park.
Great! If the spikes weren't inclusive trans people might feel excluded from the ban of sleeping on them
/s
We fell in love in a homeless place... We fell in love in a hooOoomless plaaace...
No human is illegal.
The irony
That, and the painting, might be put there by people protesting the spikes and not necessarily the owners of these spikes.
Ah yes of course!
"Women's rights are human rights." ** ** Doesn't include homeless women.
LGBT identity is being exploited by assholes
This is a photoshop. It’s not real. It’s old enough that it’s not even “AI.”
Cool, I didn’t know
Shit like this should be spray painted over
They think LGBT is benefited by having more visibility. In reality it puts them center stage for anti-LGBT rhetoric and the world is more antagonistic. In the 90s nobody cared about the gays.
It was illegal to be gay in my western country in the early 90s. Your opinion is wrong and sucks ass
I know a guy who was put in the hospital in 1997 because some dudes thought he was gay.
You both have a point and have a not point at the same time. LGBT is benefitted by more visibility, because it being denormalized harms people who are gay/trans/etc. In the 90s, gay marriage was illegal, participating in gay culture outside of specific establishments means risking confrontation with cops, and someone's kid being gay was every parent's worst nightmare (it still is for some people nowadays unfortunately). More visibility and pushing for more rights and the same integration into society that the "in-group" has naturally means that people who are higher in the hierarchy will throw a tantrum and start committing hate crimes and attacking the group and using them as a scapegoat. But making others angry is necessary if you want a disprivileged group to have the same accessibility and rights as the ruling group.
*on the trans-inclusive anti-homeless spikes
Soon they will sell inclusive bullets in Texas
My trans homies and I would probably throw a brick through that window... just saying.
Okay, in reality we'd talk to the owner first and explain why this is shitty behavior. The brick is plan B.
Plan B is for Brick. Primary plan is Plan Ы.
Plan A is for axeplain
Got it, throw axe through window at shop owner.
Did you attach the note axeplaining why these spikes are awful?
You think they don't know? This is Photoshop, but the point would have been the meme.
I mean yeah, probably they would know, but it wouldn't hurt to talk to em. Either way, specific negative feedback from potential customers gives them at least a small incentive to change.. not that it'd probably be significant enough to make a difference in this case. But hypothetically, if enough people did get upset about it and it hurt the business' bottom line, I'd want them to know the reason.
If nothing else, at least they'll know what the brick is for. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Because it's quite likely that the people who run the store also own the building or something?
Not a chance. This building (and the windowsill and spike strip) are owned by some real estate company and the shop owner (who owns the sticker) is a renter.
Be pissed off at the wealthy elite that's shooing off the homeless, not the shop owner. Totally different people.
This doesn't even have anything to do with homeless people. Homeless people don't sleep on a window sill.
I personally know a few places in my city where people have resorted to putting spikes on their window sills like that. It has everything to do with anti-social people who think someone else's window sill is a perfectly good place to sit around all night, make noise, drink alcohol, do drugs, leave their garbage, damage the property, ...
The spikes are put there out of desperation when talking to people and talking to the police hasn't helped.
Not to interrupt your hate parade against the wealthy, fully on board with that, but most store owners also absolutely hate homeless people around their stores. For somewhat understandable reasons but still.
I mean the reason is that most people will be a bit sketched out by homeless people hanging around your establishment. I've run into quite a few homeless people when living in the city and more times than not they are pretty sketchy individuals, not all but most.
There is a big correlation between homelessness and mental illness, personality disorder, addiction or a combination thereof. So yeah, excuse me if I don't want to deal with the paranoid schizophrenic hobo who's high on god knows what.
I can't speak for the US here, but in most civilized countries there is actually help available for homeless people and enough social systems to ensure that well adjusted people don't end up homeless in the first place. With the homeless that we do have, the difficulty usually lies in reaching them, getting them to accept the help that is available and having them durably make the necessary changes to their life to escape homelessness.
Accepting some of their anti-social behaviors is actually enabling it, and not helping them at all.
"We're so progressive! We like the gays! FUCK OFF YOU DIRTY HOBO! PULL YOURSELF UP BY YOUR BOOT STRAPS!"
Defeated by 2" x 4"'s.
Free acupuncture.
Finally, UHC in USA.
This is California in a nut shell.
A soul for a soul (and that's not how it has to be).
Man that's a new low.
This concept is liberalism at its finest
Specifically the NIMBYest of NIMBY "the solution is to fund the police" neoliberalism. 🖕
Is this one real at least? Because that's a great concrete example of the kind of hypocrisy the op is alluding to
I honestly don't know and still contend that it doesn't matter whether or not it is 🤷
I mean yeah the point is the same, and this is universally awful no matter the colour. I would still like to know if this exact case of lib bs has actually occurred
Turns out it's not:
Full story
Good to hear. Especially this part
It pokes you if you sit on it?