• supafuzz [comrade/them]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    995 months ago

    The bill also designates specific areas for unhoused people with penalties (including death, apparently) for being found outside the zones

    Sanctuary Districts are becoming real

  • OgdenTO [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    615 months ago

    How can this possibly be constitutional? I don’t get how violence can be decriminalized against a section of the population

    • BeamBrain [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      415 months ago

      The Constitution matters a whole lot less than what people are willing to tolerate, and everyone in the US outside the sliver on the far left considers homeless people vermin to be eradicated.

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Republicans want homeless people eradicated, Democrats just don’t want to see them. This is part of why Democrats will support (watered down, means tested) solutions that involve roofs over heads and not just cops.

        • RyanGosling [none/use name]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          That’s only a portion of democrats.

          The rest don’t want to see them, but they also don’t want to think about them. Out of sight, out of mind, all is good in god’s heaven. They’ll let republicans do the dirty work willingly or unwillingly, and if they get a glimpse of how the sausage is made, they’ll do a performance of “This is terrible. How could republicans do this?!”

          And even the means tested democrats will inadvertently support this shit. They’ll just keep demanding more and more before they lift a finger, and when you die before meeting the criteria, they’ll just go “ah well nevertheless.”

          Democrats think not voting for Biden is a vote for Trump, but the reality is that their inaction when they wield power is a vote for all things evil. Lousy fucks.

    • Llituro [he/him, they/them]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      365 months ago

      mbic, we constitutionally enshrined the right for the state to enslave people, the constitution is what people don’t revolt about.

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      325 months ago

      How can this possibly be constitutional?

      While I am constantly weirded out by how seriously fascists take the constitution, it is ultimately not “real” in the sense that it doesn’t define or restrict their actions.

      Plus, the courts have very limited enforcement power and can often just be ignored.

      And even if this is unconstitutional, and never passes, it’s a screaming out to fascists that they can and should kill. It sends marching orders to the fash even if it doesn’t hold the weight of law. Like how back in the Trump year’s Trumps more or less open support for fascist street fighting gangs emboldened them right up until the FBI turned on them.

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        85 months ago

        They don’t take the constitution seriously at all; but libs have for the past ~75 years at least, so fascists have identified it as a useful weapon.

    • @conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      215 months ago

      The government and its rules are like Tinkerbell; they only exist if we all believe in them. Or, to quote my boy Montesquieu: governments rule by the consent of the governed. Don’t forget that the first major native American relocation program (Andrew Jackson’s trail of tears) was ruled unconstitutional. Jackson was a real piece of work and had a fucking hate boner for everyone and everything; I mean, thank fuck the guy wasn’t around for WWII and the technology/political ideologies of the time. I’m pretty sure he came when he heard the SCOTUS ruled against him. He famously said “Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him come enforce it”, and just went ahead with his act of genocide. The SCOTUS couldn’t really do anything besides stamp its feet and yell about it because Jackson just decided that the rules didn’t apply to him.

      We’ve actually been in deeply, deeply unconstitutional territory multiple times in our history and the court either turned a blind eye to it or they were just flat out ignored. It can and will happen again.

    • D61 [any]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      135 months ago

      The arguments are based around things like “property rights” and “moral hazard” and “public safety” instead of directly stating something like “You’re life is forfeit if you ever go without a home long enough to look like you’re homeless.”

      • DragonBallZinn [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        65 months ago

        Moral hazard

        But porky knowingly causing a mass extinction event because ‘muh shareholder value’ ISN’T a moral hazard?

        • D61 [any]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          65 months ago

          Moral Hazard isn’t some “10 Commandments” type of thing, its a rhetorical device.

        • Philosoraptor [he/him, comrade/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          55 months ago

          A moral hazard is just when removing (or mitigating) the consequences for some risky behavior makes the behavior more common, thus potentially resulting in more harm than leaving the consequence in place would have. The stock example is insurance: if I know that in the event of my house burning down, insurance will compensate me for any losses, maybe I’m more likely to be careless with my lighter, leading to my house being more likely to burn down.

          In that sense, porky-happy causing a mass extinction in the name of shareholder value sort of is a moral hazard, because most capitalists are shielded from the direct harm associated with their actions, as those harms are exported to the global south and onto non-human species first.

    • @pearsaltchocolatebar
      link
      English
      25 months ago

      It’s because it’s only authorizing the use of force on criminal trespassers, which includes people illegally living on your property.

      I’m honestly surprised it wasn’t already a law.

    • Kusuriya
      link
      fedilink
      English
      265 months ago

      going to have? We had a literal failed revolution by a fascist and they are running for president again and are looking to have great odds for winning…

      • silent_water [she/her]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        245 months ago

        it’s neither the first nor the most successful counterrevolution in this country’s history. I suggest reading “The Counterrevolution of 1776”.

            • Kusuriya
              link
              fedilink
              English
              85 months ago

              But at least after the Civil War we went look if you were in charge of the confederacy maybe you don’t get to hold a seat in government, so we had that going for us I suppose.

        • Kusuriya
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          because the goon’s that were rallied to do it didn’t seem up to the task I suppose.

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      235 months ago

      Those old stories about black men having to keep cash in their pocket so they could tell the cops they were walking to the story, otherwise they’d be picked up for vagrancy and jailed (and used as slave labor)

  • Kusuriya
    link
    fedilink
    English
    395 months ago

    Where do I donate guns and ammunition to make it a fair fight?

  • MaoTheLawn [any, any]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    355 months ago

    “2021 analysis by the Prison Policy Initiative found that if Kentucky were a country, it would have the 7th highest incarceration rate in the world as a result of criminal policy decisions. Moreover, a study by the Vera Institute of Justice found that Kentucky’s jail and prison rates more than tripled from 1985 to 2018, because of the state’s dependence on criminalization as a means to address issues such as poverty, homelessness and addiction”

    lol

  • Optimus_Subprime [he/him, they/them]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    45 months ago

    This. This is why the US is called the Great Satan.

    It spouts shit about Christianity and Christian values and then turns around and kills the poor and homeless. All for the love of fucking money.

    Death to the US. Death to the Great Satan.