***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[osh kosh bosh]

What, specifically do you disagree with in that editorial?

Personally, I agree with the NYT up until the point that the protests get financed by shadowy outside interests. But even that’s a very tricky issue to solve for.

this isn't about popular sentiment, the truckers are the fringe of a fringe.

the reason they have been able to cause this many problems is their access to 18 wheelers.

if you allow this continue the implication is people who have privileged access
to heavy machinery get to impose their viewpoint on democratically elected leaders.

Justin Trudeau was literally just re-elected.
we can either have democracy or an *** hole-oracy

where the people willing to do the most damage to socitey have the most power,



also

"some degree of disruption"

The level of disruption this has created is well beyond acceptable range for protests.

Car factories are shutting down due to lack of parts caused by the blockade.
workers are getting furloughed.
downtown ottawa has been shut down, the economic damage has been significant.


we cannot shut down the economy because .1% of 10% don't want to get a shot.
having your voices hear is one thing, dictating policy by force is another.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

it's not that complicated,
it's typical NIMBY stuff, they claim to be in favour of affordable housing,

then they give 4 million conditions that makes building anything impossible.

basically

don't be fooled.

so theres no credence to the "Three out of 143 lots would have been for ‘future’ affordable housing. The rest of the homes were to be priced between $250K and upwards of $600K." Definitely not defending NIMBYism but it sounds like a developer trying to take advantage of zoning? 3 "future" affordable housing units out of the 143 doesn't actually sound like affordable housing to me. I am by no means so expert on real-estate development and zoning though

 

[dwalk31]

 

[osh kosh bosh]

so theres no credence to the "Three out of 143 lots would have been for ‘future’ affordable housing. The rest of the homes were to be priced between $250K and upwards of $600K." Definitely not defending NIMBYism but it sounds like a developer trying to take advantage of zoning? 3 "future" affordable housing units out of the 143 doesn't actually sound like affordable housing to me. I am by no means so expert on real-estate development and zoning though

1. let's say that's true...so?
It's not like not building housing means all the available housing gets cheaper.

if you don't keep up with demand the price of all the housing stock will go up.
so building housing whatever percentage is "affordable" is still good.

2. local control scuttling new developments makes it harder for any affordable housing to be built in the future.

if developers know they are going to get caught in a years long battle to get something built
they pass those costs to the consumer.

it makes it so higher priced developments are the only thing profitable to build.

all of it is a giant backwards hustle.
unless your real goal is preserving the value of your own home and preventing anything from being built in the future

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

1. let's say that's true...so?
It's not like not building housing means all the available housing gets cheaper.

if you don't keep up with demand the price of all the housing stock will go up.
so building housing whatever percentage is "affordable" is still good.

2. local control scuttling new developments makes it harder for any affordable housing to be built in the future.

if developers know they are going to get caught in a years long battle to get something built
they pass those costs to the consumer.

it makes it so higher priced developments are the only thing profitable to build.

all of it is a giant backwards hustle.
unless your real goal is preserving the value of your own home and preventing anything from being built in the future

i guess the only nuance missing here is whether or not dave and his YS folk are against development in general or that particular developer. while im sure theres NIMBY shennanigans afoot at some level, the "yellow springs/dave chapelle hate affordable housing" narrative is more so click bait as far as this story is concerned lol appreciate the insight

 

[trynafeelmink]

It’s intuitive to believe that harm reduction kits lower the costs of using drugs and therefore increase drug use.

However there is overwhelming evidence that it does not contribute to increased drug use, but does lower morbidity and morbidity for drug users.

These programs are fairly well documented as working as intended without significant side effects and are deployed with great success around the world.

So while your argument rings true, the evidence overwhelmingly disputes it.

How do you feel about teaching safe sec in schools?

I've seen the reports from around the world saying that the method works, but America is a very very Unique place & culture so i guess we'll see how it goes.

However i'm not really arguing against the effectiveness of the program, my biggest issue with it

1) While preventing overdoses is a good thing, it is very low on the list of things that need funding in poor communities. Especially when many of the things are the roots of drug addiction in the first place
2) Where these sites are placed, In theory it sounds helpful to put them in those communities. However as someone who has frequented both areas frequently over the years i can assure you the last thing that is going to "help" the neighborhood is condensing a large number of drug addicts in those areas

Like this article had a quote from an addict that read "I just feel safe here and I know I'm not going to get judged here"

Like that's cool & all, but again i'm in these neighborhoods daily. When there's a bunch of addicts on the corner tweeking i promise you the kids in that neighborhood don't feel safe, the women in these neighborhoods don't feel safe.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

i guess the only nuance missing here is whether or not dave and his YS folk are against development in general or that particular developer. while im sure theres NIMBY shennanigans afoot at some level, the "yellow springs/dave chapelle hate affordable housing" narrative is more so click bait as far as this story is concerned lol appreciate the insight

at a certain point your intentions don't even really matter.
it's like systemic racism, your motives don't need to be racist to perpetuate racism.


as someone who has read a million of these stories
I promise you it's a shell game, they don't want to build anything.

Consertives nimbys will just tell you they don't want people coming in bringing crime or what ever

progressive nimbys will tell you they would support it if it was a 100% affordable anarcho- syndicalist-marxist collective

 

[IATT]

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

it's not that complicated,
it's typical NIMBY stuff, they claim to be in favour of affordable housing,

then they give 4 million conditions that makes building anything impossible.

basically

don't be fooled.

Are you familiar with the affordable housing concessions made for the Barkley arena in Brooklyn? Do you think that project was good or bad

this isn't about popular sentiment, the truckers are the fringe of a fringe.

the reason they have been able to cause this many problems is their access to 18 wheelers.

if you allow this continue the implication is people who have privileged access
to heavy machinery get to impose their viewpoint on democratically elected leaders.

Justin Trudeau was literally just re-elected.
we can either have democracy or an *** hole-oracy

where the people willing to do the most damage to socitey have the most power,



also

"some degree of disruption"

The level of disruption this has created is well beyond acceptable range for protests.

Car factories are shutting down due to lack of parts caused by the blockade.
workers are getting furloughed.
downtown ottawa has been shut down, the economic damage has been significant.


we cannot shut down the economy because .1% of 10% don't want to get a shot.
having your voices hear is one thing, dictating policy by force is another.

Makes sense.

Ultimately I think civil disobedience is a valid tool. I don’t think it’s easy or useful to decide what is too fringe or a worthwhile cause. But the flip side is that society still gets to enforce its laws. It’s not Letter from a Birmingham Semi Cab.

The issue isn’t that they took over. The issue is that they weren’t cleared out. I’m not sure the NYT article is advocating for Canada not to enforce its laws on traffic management.

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

1) While preventing overdoses is a good thing, it is very low on the list of things that need funding in poor communities. Especially when many of the things are the roots of drug addiction in the first place
2) Where these sites are placed, In theory it sounds helpful to put them in those communities. However as someone who has frequented both areas frequently over the years i can assure you the last thing that is going to "help" the neighborhood is condensing a large number of drug addicts in those areas

1. Is a false dichotomy. You can prevent OD deaths and work to address social ills that contribute to addiction. 30 million is nothing, so this is certainly not crowding out other causes.

2. This is a better argument. I think there are ways to distribute kits that don’t require centralization, but I agree that creating skid row type districts is not something we should encourage. To me, though, this is just something to watch out for and not a blanket disqualification for the program.

I lived down the street from a rehab center in Pittsburgh. It wasn’t always great. But it was better than having users in barely conscious states in random parks like I saw when I was a kid in Texas.

 

[Nike Jordan]

Speaking of NY times

 

[kdawg]

He’s talking about mutually assured destruction right?

Start digging your fallout shelter now?

 

[Based Jesus]

This is poor reporting at its finest

 

[trynafeelmink]

1. Is a false dichotomy. You can prevent OD deaths and work to address social ills that contribute to addiction. 30 million is nothing, so this is certainly not crowding out other causes.

2. This is a better argument. I think there are ways to distribute kits that don’t require centralization, but I agree that creating skid row type districts is not something we should encourage. To me, though, this is just something to watch out for and not a blanket disqualification for the program.

I lived down the street from a rehab center in Pittsburgh. It wasn’t always great. But it was better than having users in barely conscious states in random parks like I saw when I was a kid in Texas.

1. This is where me & Nt have disagreed a lot, because when it comes to poor communities (Especially majority black communities) 30 million is a lot because everything in underfunded. If this was a fair & equal system then yes We would have the ability to address both, but we both know it isn't.

These communities are usually left with the scraps & having to pick & choose how to allocate government funding. And even then how the money is handled, who its distributed too & for what reasons all plays a huge role. These neighborhoods poverty rates & crime wouldn't be where they're at if they got proper funding & support.

2) I understand why they would want centralization, my issue is that these places were purposely chosen because they are in poverty. Literally go down a block from MSG & you can see dozens of people on/using drugs, all up 7th ave..... Why wouldn't they put a center there?
they wouldn't even consider asking landlords & residents in that area, because they know the issues that come along.

East Harlem & Washington Heights also aren't logical if we're talking accessibility to the entire city, again that would be more towards the city. As someone who's around these hoods i promise you that this program isn't going to stop people from congregating & using drugs outside. I would assume these places also close fairly early, Drug addicts are still going to get high supervised or not.

This program is a Bandage on a shotgun wound, it's a nice gesture but unless these neighborhoods start getting the support they need from the government (they won't) it seems like irresponsible allocation at best, accelerating neighborhood decay at worst.

That's before i get into the drug selling aspect of it & what comes along with a centralized customer base in one neighborhood & a Former cop who is vowing to stop gang/gun violence as the mayor of the city

I hope that if this expands it's distributed amongst different neighborhoods no matter the income base, but based off history........

 

[RustyShackleford]

After many back and forths over the past few months, I open the thread this morning and have been pleasantly surprised...

 

[dacomeup]

East Harlem & Washington Heights also aren't logical if we're talking accessibility to the entire city, again that would be more towards the city. As someone who's around these hoods i promise you that this program isn't going to stop people from congregating & using drugs outside. I would assume these places also close fairly early, Drug addicts are still going to get high supervised or not.

I called out the locations when this first came out. Makes no sense for these to be the 2 locations they choose other than racism. I do think that these types of centers are necessary, but when you launch them in Black and Brown neighborhoods only then I instantly question the intent.

 

[RustyShackleford]

It is still wild to me the amount of people are still talking about this manufactured story regarding grants like it is a federal program

On the last day of an application window for a grant program that local groups doing harm reduction had been open for a month.

Conservative media has been successful in weaponizing two lines of a 75-page report

My girl has been doing work like this and she is pissed about the story, thinks people that fell for it stupid, and people that defend it in the worse possible way useless

And I 100% agree with her

 

[aepps20]

I called out the locations when this first came out. Makes no sense for these to be the 2 locations they choose other than racism. I do think that these types of centers are necessary, but when you launch them in Black and Brown neighborhoods only then I instantly question the intent.

Thisssss is why you are my brother and friend. We both love the U, da Bengals and we know racism when we see it. The fact that they aren't opening up the locations in Buffington shows the racism against our WHITTTTTTE QUEENS.

 

[trynafeelmink]

I called out the locations when this first came out. Makes no sense for these to be the 2 locations they choose other than racism. I do think that these types of centers are necessary, but when you launch them in Black and Brown neighborhoods only then I instantly question the intent.

Definitely will hinge on race & income IMO. If we're just looking at reality, property owners in high earning communities aren't ever gonna come around to letting drug shelters & what comes with it into the neighborhood.

So when i hear about countless other programs trying to replicate it over the country, I don't have any reason to believe they will be distributed in good faith.

 

[dwalk31]

It is still wild to me the amount of people are still talking about this manufactured story regarding grants like it is a federal program

On the last day of an application window for a grant program that local groups doing harm reduction had been open for a month.

Conservative media has been successful in weaponizing two lines of a 75-page report

My girl has been doing work like this and she is pissed about the story, thinks people that fell for it stupid, and people that defend it in the worse possible way useless

And I 100% agree with her

Messaging?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Messaging?

I have no idea what this jackassery even supposed to mean

I'm not up on all your new trolls.

 

[dwalk31]

I have no idea what this jackassery even supposed to mean

I'm not up on all your new trolls.

Do you think that proponents of the federal program failed to properly explain it and get the message out?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Do you think that proponents of the federal program failed to properly explain it and get the message out?

You have zero interest in a good-faith discussion beyond trolling. I am not wasting time on that

It is almost the weekend. Leave me alone and go do something else you love. Like making the lives of other black people worse.