BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 46d 23h 43m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must? Not to talk for either of the aforementioned 'alt right' guys mentioned, but that sentiment is generally uttered as a description, not a prescription. And what generally follows is some opining on what should be done given we recognize it as true. So I'm not sure what your contention with that truth would be considering we just witnessed a black hobo who had enjoyed being 'strong' in the NYC subway arena get challenged and taken out by someone who is now facing the consequences for not recognizing the true strength of the black hobo, which lies in the social realm some very 'fine' jews and Americans have constructed for everyone to enjoy.
For instance, considering where the prescriptive part of the 'might makes right' philosophy comes into play, when it's me and my neurotypical non-assaulting homies on the subway vs the 'schizophrenic crime commitment squad' then I don't think we are drawing any lines in the sand that are too morally complex. With full recognition that I am not a black hobo, so I'm obviously taking my own side here, what exactly is the alternative? Wait for another Asian grandma to be pushed on the tracks? Live under the tyranny of the self proclaimed king of the subway car, who psychologically torments you for his own enjoyment? You can do that, and it is in fact being enforced as we speak. But since no one sane likes that, who should be strong?
In fact it surprises me to hear you point this out since it's a very popular argument for the types of people who dislike the 'alt right' types to go to when the 'alt right' types make their group preferences known. Which generally goes something like: ''ethnic group' commits a lot of crime, we should do something about that' Followed by the retort of: 'Why are you hating 'ethnic group'? If you don't like them because they commit too much crime, shouldn't you just hate criminals instead?'
But apparently, if you do hate the criminal, you are just a pathetic dweeb with a power fantasy? So therefor RIP Asian granny, the black hobo will now sing you the song of his people as he pushes you onto the train tracks? I don't get it.
It seems to me you are just calling Hoffmeister25 low status so therefor he shouldn't dare voice his feelings on the matter.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think a part of the issue is that the blinders people put on themselves are precluding them from seeing the reality of the past. And instead always default to ingroup bias. Why is the 'now' better than the 'then'? Well, I perceive that my ingroup is stronger now than then. OK... Is that good, relevant or even true? Is the 'amount' of feminism in the world correlated with the things you like in practice? Or are we just chasing our pathologies and perceptions of what should make us happy whilst actually finding ourselves in situations that don't. Or worse, being so blinded by our perceptions and beliefs that we preclude ourselves from recognizing that they are a part of the problem.
For example, by exalting a mythology of how bad life was for women in the past because they had less feminism and freedom, or how bad life was in the past for blacks because of drinking fountain exclusivity, one is not creating a virtual reality that allows people to experience the reality of the past. One is just creating a victimary narrative that says ones ingroup was being victimized back then. A cogent example of this being the fact that blacks and women today are not modulating their emotional experiences of struggle against the patriarchy or white supremacy based on objectivity. They very much feel put upon. The 'system' is still very much against them. And to any end that it is too obviously not, we just invent new theories and mechanisms to explain and rationalize our victimary disposition. Quite literally, in real time, we invent a new reality. What a 'huge surprise' that it shares total emotional congruity with the alleged old reality...
Part of the observation being made, which I feel a lot of the replies to your post are missing the point of, is that the reason why women weren't choosing to look fondly at the past isn't because it was objectively worse time in the context of what was being discussed. You can still have superior mechanisms and social technology in the past despite not having running water. Pointing to the fact you don't have running water is not a relevant argument against those things. Yet that is what many women are allegedly doing with regards to evaluating everything with regards to 'feminism'. Which, in reality is just serving as a proxy for the perceived interest of the ingroup.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
An analogous example would be if I called it only a jewish imposed cultural revolution. But I didn't. I spread credit where it was due. Unlike what you did in your examples on jewish achievements. This error is also present in the final paragraph of your reply.
Exactly, and the same thing is true about all bad things "The Jews" are usually blamed for.
What? So there are no great or influential jews, good or bad, just because the ones you named in support of your hyperbolic superhero-esque view on jews didn't invent or discover stuff in a vacuum on their lonesome? That seems rather silly to me.
Just like you claim the inventor of something bad was a 'gentile' I contend that I should be able to do the same if the person in question was a jew. I don't stand on the ground that no man can claim that an American, Frenchman, Scot or whatever else did something bad.
Yet whenever I make a claim that insinuates that jews did something bad, even when it is wrapped up in a claim that Americans also did the same bad thing, I get people weaving these transparent logic pretzels just so they can try to squeeze in an argument against an inconvenient fact that places their ingroup in an unfavorable light.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Maybe it's just because I'm not in on the game enough, or that I'm getting bored, or that I'm a little too honest about being stupid, but I'm starting to get the same kind of vibes from these interviews as I get from listening to one too many interviews with 'science popularizers' and physicists talking about black holes and solar systems or whatever. At some point the endless stream of analogies, abstractions and hypothetical arguments just starts sounding like a 2 hour poem about math that I don't understand.
You can assure me it makes sense. You can explain to me how this new and exciting theory of the universe, that hinges entirely on mathematical assumptions, is like dumping a gallon of milk into a box of cereal before pouring it into the bowl, and I can maybe relate to that analogy because I know milk and cereal. But, again, at the end of the day I will never be able to relate that analogy to what is actually being talked about because all that's really there is theoretical math I don't understand.
These conversations seem to follow a similar but slightly different path of, there's no actual math, just assumptions being made about the future. The AI man says we are doomed if we continue. Here's a powerful analogy. Here's technobabble about code... Like, dude, you got me, OK? This appeals to my vanity for coffee table philosophical arguments and you are a credentialed person who sounds confident in your convictions. I guess we are doomed. Now, who is the next guest on Joe Rogan? Oh, science man is going to tell me about a super massive black hole that can eat the sun. Bro, did you know that a volcanic eruption in Yellowstone park could decimate the entire planet? This doctor was talking about anti-biotics and...
I don't want to come across as too belligerent, but all this stuff just seems to occupy the same slot of 'it feels important/novel to care'. I'm not going to pretend to understand or care any more than I would care about Yellowstone. I'll accept all the passionate believers telling me that they told me so when the inevitable mega-earthquakes happen.
But until then I'll just continue enjoying the memes that predate our inevitable apocalypse with the same urgency that the people worrying over AI show when enjoying yet another 4 hour interview, followed by days of more rigorous debate, over the ever encroaching extinction level threat that is AI.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
In the normie world yes, but this forum was never afraid of calling (((them))) in the slightest.
No I'm talking about the point of contention in this thread specifically. I said that people pretend jews don't exist as a group when there is a negative implication in play. And that they play deconstructive games of nihilism instead. Which is never done when the association being made is positive, like you illustrated.
My point was, even if we accept that Jews and Jews alone are to blame for what are they most often blamed by people who are not fond of (((them))), inventing mass murdering totalitarian doctrines of communism and monotheism, their total tally (for people who insist on making such "tallies" of whole nations and ethnic groups) is highly positive.
Which is the only form of discourse surrounding 'jews' that is even remotely acceptable. Your point is a step behind the conversation.
Your argument fell flat because your original example of Jewish misdeed that started this exchange, stopping Japanese runaway population growth is something that would be seen by any reasonable person as good thing.
I mean, to make a long argument short and to skip over a bunch of nuane, population control needs to be a controlled demolition, not a natural disaster. It also needs to be universal. What is happening in Japan is a travesty on multiple fronts and does little to nothing to address the problem of overpopulation.
So, achievements I listed in my post are stolen from gentiles or complete fake? Tell me more.
Some are, like a quick read on the history of Penicillin would tell you. Out of the 4 or 5 big players in that story there is only one jew. To put in perspective how silly your position is, it would be like me saying the post-war cultural revolution in Japan was entirely jewish. I'm not really sure if I should accept this as genuine. I mean, do I need to explain the importance of the legwork already put in place by gentiles that facilitated every single 'achievement' you link? All the co-authors and members of the various teams that worked on these problems?
But, again, this position of yours is at best supplementary to the point I was making. Jews would sooner take credit for things that make them look good even when they don't own all the credit, than they would own up to something negative they are solely or primarily responsible for.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
No, I pipe up whenever someone goes off on similar rants about Jews/blacks/whites/Chinese/Americans/Muslims/Christians/women/Republicans/leftists/etc. etc.
That's true enough. My prior statement is poorly worded.
I didn't take you for a jew nor do I generally assume the people I'm talking to are jewish. I just think you ingroup them.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
So, you want to debate whether "The Jews" as a whole, sum of all things every Jew ever did in all of recorded history, were on the net good or bad for all mankind.
No thank you. But your presence here is very helpful in illustrating just how easily people go from pretending jews don't exist in the negative to praising them for things they didn't even do in the positive. Maybe take a moment to think just how little bad a person could say of jews if all they ever did was good. Even if of all the good things they do only half is true. As a cursory glance at any of the history of the topics you raised can show.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't need to explain how someones group informs their action to point at the fact they belong to a group and that they did something. I can just look at the behavior and call out whatever it is they did. I am not saying this as a matter of personal opinion. I am saying this as a matter of fact relating to how people in general interact with group categories. I am also pointing out that it is only in the case of jews that people like you start piping up at this. It's not a surprise, since it is generally how people react when their ingroup gets implicated in any negative appearing act. But it's tiresome to have to play a game of pinning the tail on the donkey every single time someone jewish does something, where, for some reason in the case of jews, people want to pretend the donkey just doesn't exist whenever the tail isn't flattering.
Again: yes, and? What is this supposed to say? Who is arguing that Jews don't exist as a category?
What do you mean yes and? If pointing out the fact isn't a problem why are you here? Because your socialization kicked in when you read something that could be inferred to cast jews in a negative light? Seen that once or twice.
Okay, finally we're getting somewhere. America is a coherent polity that does things for American reasons.
I didn't say that. Again, you are talking about why someone did X. I am not. I am just saying who did X and what group they belong to. I don't need to argue for or against any emerging opinion a person might have from learning about the actions of individuals who belong to a group. I can just point them out and leave them there. If people like 'womens rights' they can draw positive conclusions about jews like Beate. If people don't like 'womens rights' they can do something else. I didn't demand people group up in the way they do.
But you appear seem to be treating her (and other Jews) as Jewish only.
And the 'Americans' nuked Japan. Are we sure Truman wasn't just a Protestant? How many from the FDR 'brain trust' were Northerners? That's a little bit of sarcasm, of course. I'm not entertaining this tactical nihilism, which I alluded to in a prior comment. Jews can take all the credit for all their Nobel prizes as jews and nothing else. They can muse about their high IQ in universities and proclaim to be gods chosen people in synagogues. Yet here, somehow, they can't take the heat for an act they, in other contexts, pat themselves on the back for. This line of argument you are running with is entirely transparent.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
This is tautological.
This is stupid.
Okay. But you're clearly saying that being Jewish was in some way important. I can see how being a feminist would be significant. I can see how being an American would be significant. If you want to claim that being Jewish is significant - implying that either a non-Jewish American feminist would have done something different, or only a Jew would have been in that role to begin with - well, you keep doing this thing where you hint something about Da Joos and then squirm around when I try to pin you down on what exactly Da Joos have to do with it.
Consistency with regards to categories does not depend on what you personally think is significant or not. Jews as a category exist just as much as any other group category.
Yes, Americans nuked Japan. And? Aside from a lengthier discourse on how the war happened and how it concluded that way, what inferences do you think we should make about Americans nuking cities? Would another country have acted differently? Is there something about Americans in particular that made them more likely to build atomic bombs and then use them? Those are colorable arguments! But... what of it?
Jews wrote the part of the Japanese constitution that pertains to 'womens rights', and?.
In a broader historical sense, when you take a look at the actions of 'Americans' as a whole, you can freely form an opinion on the history or 'net effect' America has had. Some come away seeing America as the greatest country in the world. Others come away calling it the great Satan. The important part here is that because 'America' can exist as a category, you can apply a broad opinion to it. Good or bad, America exists.
The same is, like you are demonstrating, not true for the broad category of 'jews'. When opinions on jews come from philosemites who want to heap praise on 'the jews', the category is seen as valid, or when jews themselves want to congratulate themselves for being what they are. They don't pretend there exists a distinction between being jewish and jews doing something. They just say outright that the jewish people are great by dint of the great actions and achievements of individual jews. It's only when someone described jews in a less than flattering light or characterizes an action taken by a jew negatively that this sort of category nihilism and special pleading come into play. As you have artfully demonstrated.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
No, I don't make any argument as to why someone did what they did. I just note that they did what they did whilst being who they are. Like I said before: You don't need to import any socialized 'logic' into this. She, the jewish feminist, wrote the part of the Japanese constitution that pertains to 'women's rights'.
I don't need a theory of 'why' to notice when a jew does something. She is a jew. She did what she did. The statement is true. Your problem here is obviously not with noticing people doing things and applying a group label to their decision, as can be seen with the 'Americans nuked Japan' bit which you take no issue with. You are only here because of the fact she is jewish and her actions were grouped into the 'jews' label. I am being consistent, you are not.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Isn't this a little too low effort? What's the relevant part neither of you are quoting?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
If any of those labels existed in a meaningful sense then yeah. It would certainly be a different world if the average white American had the ingroup bias to back up their more specific heritage.
And isn't Beate Sirota's Austrian heritage also relevant?
Why would it be? The 'heritage' of Europe has consistently failed to rub itself into the jewish diaspora that set up shop there. If that theory made a lick of sense I would have expected Beate to be able to fortify the Japanese culture she was raised in instead of facilitating its destruction. In fact she, and those that came before her, would long have stopped being jews and instead just become Austrian.
It's almost as if you're looking at a large number of people from various backgrounds involved in the effort, and for some reason deciding that only one of those is significant. What do you not apply the logic "A Jewish woman did this" = "Jews did this" to any other group?
I very specifically stated that it was a Judeo-American operation. I certainly don't consider it insignificant that the Americans dropped nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities or that they firebombed civilian areas in Tokyo. I also don't engage in tactical nihilism about who actually did it. I don't pretend that the distinction of who made the decisions or who released the bombs or who flew the planes is meaningful. Ultimately the decision, good or bad, was made and carried out by 'the Americans'. They own that blame. I very specifically pointed this out in my previous post. I am the one being consistent here with applying individual blame to groups. It's not the fault of 'the Americans' that they abandoned their more specific European cultural heritage in favor of an American identity, unlike these jews who very strongly hold unto theirs regardless of where they are raised in the world.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The general wisdom that comes from 'heterodox' parents I've heard from is that what kind of friends your kid will have will be the biggest influencing factor. There's no one ruleset for all kids, but if there was one it would be rule number one. That being said, it's much easier said than done to control what kind of friends your kid will have.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Because you are socialized to deconstruct the label 'jewish' but not the label 'American'. The 'logic' only gets applied to one but not the other. 'Americans' nuked Japan. 'Jews' wrote the womens rights part of the new Japanese constitution.
It's 'Jew involved, therefor it's not just an American imposed cultural revolution'. I'm not pointing to just any jewish person. I'm pointing to the jewish feminist who wrote the part of the new Japanese constitution that pertained to 'womens rights'. Which was a very radical change from the prior cultural norms of Japan.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I feel like I've already answered your contentions in my previous comment. You've not provided a distinction mechanism between what constitutes 'organic' change and what's not.
I guess, in total, I just fundamentally disagree with you on where culture comes from in the first place. Culture doesn't fall from the sky. It flows forth from people and the conditions they create for themselves. I can agree that US 'nationalism' is dead in the water. But I'd argue that being a product of its people.
It's not hard to teach a Han-Chinese to love his country when it is undeniably his country with thousands of years of history where he is surrounded by people who look, talk and think like him. It's a little different when you were brought to 'your country' as a slave. It's a little different when the countries media is dominated by people who don't look like, talk like or think like you.
I think the history of the US has taught us that you can't railroad over these differences. And that the same ingroup pathologies you would seek to harness for your greater American cultural project will work against it when people see themselves as having more in common with those who look, talk and think like themselves. I mean, regardless of all else, why should anyone pledge their hard work and duty to the US and not, say, Israel, Mexico, China or Africa?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I said it was a Judeo-American imposed cultural revolution. And it wasn't just some random part. She was specifically involved with the part that, I contended, upended the established cultural relations between the sexes in Japan. Which pertained to 'women's rights'. A portion she was specifically deputized to write.
You don't need to import any socialized 'logic' into this. She, the jewish feminist, wrote the part of the Japanese constitution that pertains to 'women's rights'.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I didn't feel like I needed a lot of supporting evidence since we were talking about what the perspective of a person from the 1860's would be when coming in and taking a look at the current state of affairs. I figured that such a person would not come to very politically correct conclusions about the world after interacting with a few basic facts about it in any case.
Looking at the US supreme court, it's majority 6/9 Catholic. Looking at Bidens and his cabinet, it's jewish and Catholic with Biden himself being a Catholic. I find this sufficient to say that a person from 1860 would conclude that jews and catholics are running the show. But maybe that's my bias shining through.
The '100k is past 50 years': https://datahazard.substack.com/p/interracial-murder
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The Japanese lost WW2, got nuked, and then had their constitution rewritten by a bunch of Americans.
The primary portion of the document that upended established cultural relations between the sexes in Japan was written, in part, by a jewish woman.
Far be it for me to subscribe to a theory of a single cause but the post-war era seem to have taken a drastic toll on the Japanese birthrate. Considering the revolutionary nature of the imposed constitution I'm more inclined than not to say that it has weighed the Japanese people down heavily. They had their own culture that was producing children and it was destroyed. That's not to say the old ways would have been impervious to technological change. But I think they were far more anti-fragile than the thing that replaced it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Japan of the 1950's was in the throes of a Judeo-American imposed cultural revolution. I'm sure the time traveler would be shocked but not surprised that foreign occupation had left his country without its sword. I think that highlights a blind spot to the 'cultural' ideology as a whole. At any point in time can you pinpoint whatever thing is happening and say: 'see, there it is, there's our culture' with no regard for what it was before or how it got to the point it is now. I agree that a culture changes with its people and technology. But that fact does not excuse every cultural change as being a fate bound product that inertly fell from the sky.
As for your overall point I'm at a loss. We seem to have gone away from a cultural definition of work ethic and duty and instead moved towards a cultural definition of what I would call trinkets and hobbies. I don't believe you are saying that if more immigrants listened to Hank Williams that they would be more inclined to work. So I don't understand where we are going with this.
As for country music and similar 'cultural' trinkets. For me, if it's not Southern, it's not really country. I don't mean that in a sense that it has to come from a certain area. But the fact that it has to exist as something opposite whatever it is the 'North' is doing. It has to actually be 'politically' Southern. Otherwise, what even is it? Blake Shelton pseudo rapping with his coolest black friends about tractors? I find it pathetic. Why does he mention in one of his songs that 'his boys' don't listen to the Beatles but rather Coe. Shelton is a living breathing embodiment of a Yankee pop star at this point. Country music didn't grab the South just because they liked the tunes. It grabbed the South because it was Southern. It was as much a product of musical talent as it was a product of a culture war that self described conservatives have long abandoned and disavowed in favor of fortune and fame from the 'North'.
I don't think a time traveler would pretend that the US is even a country after you showed him the state of things. I mean, in the past 50 years the US has seen over 100 thousand white people murdered by black criminals. Race mixing at an all time high. Jews and catholics running the show, the Church supporting gay marriage, a former black president. And to top it all off, conservatives are more likely to support these things than not, aside from gay marriage. Conservatives certainly aren't museum pieces, but I'd have expected their will, want and tradition to lead somewhere other than where they are today. Least of all that there are conservatives that unironically proclaim that the problems with Mexicans and blacks are 'cultural' and not rooted in the fact that they don't belong in the country at all.
Immigrants never assimilated in the first place. The original founding father WASP cultural norms were, through academia, media and finally voting, drowned out by a random collection of immigrants from Europe. Though the WASP's only have themselves to blame for opening the gates in the first place. 'Assimilation' is a self flattering fairy tale Americans, mostly white and conservative, have been telling themselves for a long time now but it's nothing more than that.
The fundamental illustration of this comes from those who self describe as the most culturally American, who also happen to be mostly white and conservative, are also the ones who have nigh unanimously failed to maintain any semblance of American culture from the previous generation outside of gun ownership. Every other value that could or should have been maintained has over time been crushed to appeal to those who have power and money. Leaving the expressed cultural tradition of America revolving around guns, submission and greed.
What white conservative Americans mean when they talk of 'assimilation' is whether or not the immigrant is willing to work under whatever conditions the white conservative American deems acceptable. With no regard for the fact that many immigrants are not as submissive and greedy as they are. Which doesn't help explain why conservatives are seemingly perpetually thunderstruck by the willingness of immigrants to support the political party that promises them more money and status. Leading one to conclude that the final lacking component that makes up the mythical cultural American is delusional arrogance.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
They stopped buying it, not playing it. That happened with the release of new games, primarily Battlefield 2.
But that's all very much besides the point, which pertained to why, if you had the ability to funnel attention to something, it should be done. Sure, your hobby feels important to you. But that's what everyone feels towards their hobby.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I didn't say that was the case.
If you started marketing Battlefield 1942 I'm sure plenty of people would start playing it again. That doesn't answer the question of why that should be done or be considered important. Why should a bunch of women care about publishing books for 'blokes'? These women seem perfectly happy reveling in the current situation.
I think the underlying problem with taking ideas and playing with them like this is that you are not focusing on the purpose behind the idea or the reality it inhabits.
To give an example from an area that can and has been greatly damaged by people losing sight of the ball, so to speak: if we are using currency printed by the Federal Reserve, why don't we just print more of it? It's free money, right? Well, everyone can see that this is not a good idea since it would lead to 'bad outcome'. You can play with the idea of money all you want, but to anyone keeping an eye on the ball the games you are playing are obviously pointless.
The goal of trans or gender anything isn't to create a novel and sophisticated categorization mechanism that functionally encompasses the human condition. For transpeople the goal is to be able to be whatever they want to be. Trans rights are a physical thing. If they want to go into the womens bathroom then that's what 'gender ideology' will have to facilitate. If they want to be a woman by setting up a webcam and masturbate their dicks into their own mouths then so be it.
If you want to take 'gender ideology' and play with it where it will lead to 'bad outcome' then you don't understand 'gender ideology' just like a person who thinks printing infinite money is a fun idea doesn't understand 'economics'. Worse than that, you are not even engaging with the true absurdity of it.
We can have a lot of people with a lot of bird ideas about what gender is or what trans is or whatever else, just like we can have a lot of people with a lot of bird ideas about what the economy is or how much money we should be printing. But it doesn't matter. What matters is what those with power want or what the ruling ideology says. And whilst you could argue that there is no obvious 'Federal Reserve' type body behind 'gender ideology', there is an obvious goal behind it. Just like there is a goal behind the Federal Reserve or whatever else. In short: more trans rights = good. Less trans rights = bad. Making fun or light of the means by which we get more trans rights can therefor only be at best childishly silly and at worst cynically transphobic.
The only way to escape this is by going full heterodox. Becoming a libertarian/nazi that believes central banking is a scheme cooked up by the Rothschilds/jews to enslave the taxpayer/goyim or by becoming a transphobic dissident right winger/nazi. For everything else you're just a bird in a cage.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You just made a big statement about how modding is a male phenomena
No I didn't.
The problem here is that mass incarceration of the 'humane' variety isn't a realistic option. I mean, you can try to have a cordoned off village or facility filled with deranged schizophrenics but it won't last very long. These guys need constant supervision. If you don't want them burning things down or tormenting one another, usually the weakest and most vulnerable, then you are looking at very high costs.
Coming from a part of the Nordic world that is considered to treat their mentally ill in the most humane possible way, the system in place is constantly teetering on the edge of falling apart. It can not afford any higher ratios of mentally ill entering society. Even now there are a host of mentally ill people locked in jail for little other reason than a lack of other facilities to house them. The others are kept at facilities that house the criminally insane. The semi-functional ones are homeless. Benefitting immensely from the small scope of the homeless problem, they can be periodically checked on. If that wasn't the case the problem would get a lot worse.
Considering a Nordic country can barely handle the problem with it's relatively comfortable population, I don't see America finding any solutions.
More options
Context Copy link