You're viewing a single thread.
Idk about NYC, but my local library might as well rebrand to a homeless shelter. I love the concept of libraries, but if they aren't going to throw out the homeless people using it as a place to jerk off and do drugs, then idk what to do. I personally don't feel safe at ours, especially with my kids.
Seriously, have you considered that the same ideology that strive to choke public libraries, also the one that push people to homelessness? (At least unsheltered homelessness)
Only at the lowest possible resolution image of the situation.
I'm sure it's possible to enforce a "don't do drugs or jerk off here" rule at libraries, without destroying all forms of civic responsibility for the downtrodden.
You don't get it. We are saying that the same people who want to close down libraries are also the ones causing more people to become homeless and/or closing down homeless shelters.
No they probably shouldn't be jerking off at a library, but they don't have anywhere else to do it. Maybe if you had been homeless you might understand.
Libraries are the last bastion of indoor public spaces. If you have a problem with people experiencing homelessness, do something about it. Don’t complain about the one remaining place that welcomes all people.
If you can't be in a library without jerking off in the shared spade, you have to go outside.
Yeah, you shouldn't see homeless people. no one should!
(/s)
I mean, this but unironically? No one should be seeing homeless people because they shouldn't be homeless.
But they do exist, something systematic must be changed for then not to exist. (Public housing, maybe?)
But until than, what?
There's maybe two problems with this:
- public housing is a part of the picture, and so are public libraries. The solution is certainly not to cut library spending just because there are homeless people using it
- Thinking there being homeless people around is an issue that needs solving is itself pretty bigoted. Like, maybe you have a problem with people who haven't showered for a while? or people who use the library for personal activities because there are no better places for them to do them? But 'these people are a problem' itself becomes problematic because you've consolidated those qualities you find objectionable into a class of person, and that makes it really easy to forget/misplace/dismiss the humanity those people deserve.
It's a common attitude, so don't feel like i'm picking you out personally to scold. More people should be aware of how that attitude dehumanizes people experiencing shelter insecurity.
Permanently Deleted
There is no system under which nobody will be homeless, unless some people are kept inside by force. We can reduce homelessness, but if we don't stop until there is ZERO then we will have gone far into the realm of cutting people's rights down so much they can't screw their own lives up.
I hate that this is true, but we don't benefit from pretending (or legitimately believing) that it isn't.
In order to have a world where people can determine their own destiny, ie in order to have a world with freedom, we must allow people to destroy themselves.
The system is badly rigged and unfair, but even the perfect system will still have some homeless people.
I don't think the words "jerking off or doing drugs" were accidental in that comment. The request isn't to ban homeless people from being in the library respectfully.
A rule like "no large backpacks" is bullshit, and anti-homeless. Backpacks aren't a disruption to the library.
A rule like "no jerking off or doing drugs" is perfectly reasonable.
Permanently Deleted
"I hate seeing homeless people trying to cope with being homeless"
This is called a number of things:
- putting words in someone's mouth
- mis-using quotation marks
- a straw man
He didn't say that. He said he hates to see homeless people in there jerking off and doing drugs.
Respond to that. Don't respond to something else that so heavily distorts what the other guy said. There's no point, other than to sacrifice anything valuable the conversation could have been into being a play about how morally superior you are.
Ugh.
Was going to say the same thing, only you said it much nicer then I would have.
Not one of the responses to your comment seem to actually address the issue.
As usual, lemmy users are too busy trying to prove that they're way holier than thou and forget they live in the real world, not the idealized ones they make up in their overly politicized fantasies.
People not feeling safe due to homelessness at a library will not be using a library, they will not see value in the library because it's not a place they would go to. They also likely won't care about them enough to make additional funding a major concern for them.
If you want to procure more funding for a library, it needs to be a place people see value in.
You can work to solve homelessness and also improve safety of libraries, demonizing someone for not wanting to go somewhere because they're uncomfortable and feel unsafe is not helping support your issue.