Instead of helping Britney Spears, guardianships increased without a fiduciary duty lawyer for "gravely disabled" or predicted to get worse. Homeless people need shelter, not chemical restraint.
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
448 points (93.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43988 readers
774 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I think California is an okay place, but there are several things that annoy me about it, and here are some:
The houseless problem seems extremely poorly managed. I lived in NYC for six years and have visited California a few times. From my experiences, both SF and LA appear to have much larger populations living outdoors (I checked and this is true, 75% of LA’s population vs 6% in NYC, and the cities are comparable in both population and houseless population). Additionally, I’ve had more issues interacting with houseless people in CA than in NYC despite having lived in Manhattan many times longer than I’ve spent in CA. My guess is this is due to worse services/mental health services in CA. I would frequently buy food or coffee for houseless individuals in NYC and never had an issue. I once gave a couple of dollars to someone CA for bus money. They yelled at me because they needed a couple more for the bus. Another time I was followed for several blocks.
California as a state and population seems to be at least as much bluster as action. I don’t want to detract from some real actions, like car electrification requirements, but for example, prop 65, the “known to the state of California to cause cancer” labels. A) California seems to “know” many things that science does not. B) no one pays any attention to these labels, but they sure cost a lot to produce C) if anything, this will cause people to ignore future warnings for real things or even current ones like on cigarettes.
As a longtime resident of Hawaii, this one just annoys me. California claimed it was the first state to plastic bags. This is false; As of May 11, 2014, they were banned across Hawaii. https://www.surfrider.org/news/hawaii-becomes-the-first-state-in-the-u.s.-to-ban-plastic-bags. This did not stop California from claiming the victory when a law was signed later that year that didn’t go into effect until July 2015. https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/2014/09/30/news18742/index.html. California doesn’t just not know what causes cancer, they don’t know how to use google despite it being from their state. I suppose you could argue semantically that Hawaii’s ban was not statewide, as it was technically four bans, one in each of the counties, but that’s splitting hairs.
There we go. This is what I was looking for.
Prop 65 is definitely useless. But I don't see that as a reason to move out of the state.
The whole thing that prompted me to ask was that I was told some people left the state for Montana because of the "policies" but I couldn't get a good answer on which policies they disagreed with.
Homelessness is certainly a problem here that's worse than most places. But it's still a problem everywhere you go.
Yeah, I don’t think anything I said would be a good reason to move away, but then again, CA is probably one of the top 5ish states I would live in.
It's far from useless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65#Accomplishments
It forced companies to reformulate their products to use less harmful chemicals to avoid having to use the label. And it was highly successful at that, not only in California but outside, because businesses don't want the labels on their products. Especially food products or products meant for kids.
What you see is malicious compliance from businesses as there is no penalty for putting the sign if there's no dangerous chemicals. If they put it often enough, then most people think this law is ridiculous. For example. If Disney would get a civil lawsuit (this is how the law is enforced), because for example one their restaurants were using dangerous chemicals, this sign won't protect them. So it serves no other purpose than to make it appear that the law is pointless.
Other ways they fight it is trying to pass federal law banning it, they had several attempts.
They also making strawman lawsuits, even creating companies specially for the lawsuit to show that this law hurts business.
load more comments
(7 replies)
That sort of self-gratifying nonsense only works if the target is more successful than you.
Using it against a target that is less successful than you would be picking on people who can't defend themselves.
I also like the "you get what you vote for" comments about CA. WE voted for the best candidate out there at the time for Gov., we've had both parties in the past and they were a mixed lot...the guy who lost during the last recall election was dragging around a live bear to do press events and didnt have much of a position on anything relevant and he lost...
Describe these "people asked me", OP.
It's endless soulless suburbia interspersed by twelve-lane traffic jams, what's there to like?
load more comments
(10 replies)
So, what is it that California does (policy-wise) that people hate so much?
Consider the possibility that the "hate" is not an opinion being reached in good faith.