Cabanella :gnuke: on Nostr: "Bleeding hearts" is a dumb way of putting it. I'm not just being a moralfag here, ...

"Bleeding hearts" is a dumb way of putting it. I'm not just being a moralfag here, though I obviously don't want the pointless suffering we have now, It's also me being pragmatic.

I'll give another common example many people call 'Bleeding heart', homeless people. Nobody likes having homeless people. Whether you feel bad for them or find them disgusting it's a public nuisance and nobody likes it. Yet, the right wing idea is leave them too it, or worse yet arrest them in some form.

Leaving them too it clearly isn't an option. It adds to the rot of so many cities and makes them depressing shitholes, like L.A, where there are tents down many streets of homeless people. Many of them are on drugs and alcohol too, and must be treated. It's a huge money drain to keep them around.

And of course you'll say 'just shoot them', but we're in the real world and can't just execute people. So then, what's the best solution? Why don't we look to places with low rates of homelessness, like Japan.

It's not like Japan IS capitalist, and hey they even barely have any niggers in. So, in Japan there's extremely affordable accommodation. Some of these places are practically homeless shelters, like Net cafes.

If you can get the homeless housed in hotels or other small accommodation, you can do so for extremely cheap. It keeps them out the way, and usually keeps them from dying. Of course, especially in Japan, it's extremely hard still to get these people back to work for many reasons, so I think the government should probably offer these people low-skill jobs, even at reduced rate if you image you're housing them too.

Many people will whine that they don't wish to spend their tax money on people who failed at life or something to that effect. "Why should I have to subsidize their failure?", well, you already are. We already pay tons to 'deal with' the homeless in anyway except giving them shelter. According to CNN "California has spent a stunning $17.5 billion trying to combat homelessness over just four years"

That's JUST California. You could probably house EVERY homeless person in America in cheap single-room apartments/hotel sized rooms for less than California spent in only four years.

Do you understand what I mean now? It's not about being 'bleeding heart', it's being pragmatic, between wars, funding of terrorists, foreign aid, America must spend unfathomable amounts of money on the third world.

If you wanna awaken your inner white man, you could even perform Neo-colonialism and hands on help these third world governments with the promise of a large cut of the natural resources of the country.