this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024

466 points (92.1% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35551 readers

295 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.

Rules:

1. Be Respectful

Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...

2. No Illegal Content

Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...

3. No Spam

Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...

4. No Porn/Explicit

Content

-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...

5. No Enciting Harassment,

Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts

-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...

6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

7. Content should match the theme of this community.

-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...

8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.

-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense

Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

LillianVS@lemmy.world

STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

466

Just 2 people. (i.imgur.com)

submitted 7 months ago by meep_launcher@lemm.ee to c/mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world

145 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 92 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

This is a silly post with silly implications, even though I appreciate its rhetorical goals

The really c/mildlyinfuriating fact is there are more empty homes in the US than homeless.

Based on currently available numbers, there are about 31 vacant housing units for every homeless person in the U.S. src

You don’t even need to involve churches. You need to hold individuals and businesses who hoard real estate for profit accountable. (There is also the matter of the logistics of getting homeless people into those homes, but I will not dive into that here.)

I appreciate the sentiment of this post, but please be sure to check your predetermined biases before you use the text of this meme to inform your opinion on policy.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago (8 children)

I don't follow what's silly here. These motherfuckers are not taxed and also not obligated to give back and that should matter. Tax them, would be the obvious solution

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yeah the moral bit is we know people who hold housing for profit are douches. Churches are worse because they think they're doing the Lord's work and love talking about caring for people, but very few actually do any good.

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Am I reading this right? Are you saying that churches are worse than house-hoarding landlords, just because they think they're doing good but a lot of them don't? Even the 18% of churches that rent their buildings from other churches^[1]^ (or the ones that rent non-church properties like theaters or schools,) and thus almost certainly don't even have a property they could give? Or what about the 48% of churches that run or support a food pantry^[2]^, and are thus doing good?

[1] - https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2018/fall-state-of-church-ministry/two-churches-one-roof.html
[2] - https://theconversation.com/nearly-half-of-all-churches-and-other-faith-institutions-help-people-get-enough-to-eat-170074

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (10 children)

You don’t even need to involve churches.

There are plenty of valid complaints about (many) American religious institutions, but the constant shoe-horning in of complaints about religion in unrelated posts that I see on Lemmy comes across as bitter and myopic.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

(There is also the matter of the logistics of getting homeless people into those homes, but I will not dive into that here.)

And caring for them, because a lot of them can't function as normal members of society for whatever reason. The real estate is only one piece of this. But yeah, if people were willing to pay for all that, it wouldn't be a problem. As it is, it's always the next guy's problem.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Mmm I think you’re missing one of the core points of this though: churches have historically and traditionally offered and been used as sanctuaries, often by the poor and downtrodden in a society. In the US these days, you don’t see nearly as much of that. It’s more about evangelism and dogmatism and prosperity gospel. Christians in the US demonstrably doesn’t care that much about poor people these days.

More broadly: as someone who was raised Christian but is now a staunch atheist, I and many others would have far fewer issues with Christians if they would actually fucking practice what their religion preaches instead of whatever some MAGApastor tells you that Supply Side Jesus says.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Yeah, this was my first thought as well as soon as I read the image. We have tons and tons of literally empty housing units. Even if you take away the ones that are only temporarily vacant while searching for a new tenant, you're still left with a bunch of housing units that sit empty, waiting to be flipped for a profit by real estate investors.

[–] ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 80 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Most homeless are in the big cities, most churches are out in the boonies. The homeless are very unlikely to accept being bussed to a flyover state to sleep in a church in bumfuck nowhere. For a myriad of reasons.

Keep in mind also that a lot of them have a very hard time accepting any help due to past trauma as well.

It's not a situation with a quick fix. Really the first step isn't even ensuring housing for the homeless, it's making sure we don't get more homeless. We likely can't save a subset of today's homeless because they don't want/or won't accept any help that comes with any strings (like no drugs or just they can't trash the place). But we can ensure no-one else ends up on the streets by beefing up mental healthcare and social services.

[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 33 points 7 months ago

Churches "sponsor" people in other countries all the time. They could do the same for two people in the nearest city, they don't have to force people to relocate.

There is actually an easy fix - build houses and give them to people. I remember when "Habitat for Humanity" was so much more prominent in churches.

[–] exanime@lemmy.today 17 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I can't tell if you are purposefully taking the post literally just to be able to shoot it down... But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt

Just think of how many homeless people would actually refuse to live in any of these Mega mansions

Or better yet, imagine what these "churches" could do with the literal millions they spend in mansions and private jets to help the homeless... You know, if they actually care about that and were not just tax avoidance operations

[–] ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Since I'm not American I keep forgetting about your for profit churches. The concept is just too foreign to me. When I think church I think of 300 year old cold stone building in the countryside.

Still there are homeless that would refuse, some from not believing or trusting you, some from not wanting to relocate even if it means that level of comfort, some from being deep into addiction thinking that they'll be forced to get clean. And some will take you up on it and just absolutely trash the place trying to steal anything not bolted down.

That said the vast majority would for sure jump on it and thrive. So if it was at all possible to make happen it would be a good idea.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think you're forgetting that a lot of churches are small fellowships co-opting an office space or like the other commenter said, out in the middle of nowhere. This wasn't a post about mega churches, but it's a fair point.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (19 children)

They have a hard time "accepting help" because as often as not; it isn't really help.

Its libs jacking themselves off with the monkey paw; doing awful shit using nice words so they can feel good while being assholes.

Sure you get a room and three meals a day! No pets, must detox first, curfew but also you must have a job, and also dont mind the bars haha yes we do have to lock you in.

load more comments (19 replies)

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (25 children)

I mean, even before you get as far as the opinion of the homeless, most churches aren't going to want to host two high-needs, possibly substance-addicted people from the big city in their atrium ("think of the children!"), which is the point of this.

It's a situation that absolutely has a quick fix, just not a super cheap quick fix. It's far easier to not formally address it, and leave the cost on them and whoever happens to be around them. There's more than enough resources out to fix it if there was the political will.

load more comments (25 replies)

[–] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 59 points 7 months ago (6 children)

just 2 people

What does this mean?

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 121 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If every church houses two homeless people, no more homeless people.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 27 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Assuming the distribution is the same for both

[–] huginn@feddit.it 30 points 7 months ago (1 children)

(it's not)

But the point is not invalid. It's a problem that seems insurmountable but can definitely be tackled.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Although homeless people absolutely can and do migrate. They prefer cities for somewhat similar reasons to everyone else, and with no place they are allowed to live why not squat somewhere with lots of (begging/stealing/dumpsterdiving) opportunities and shorter walks?

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 17 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Maybe OP believes every town in the US has exactly 1 church and 2 homeless people and is mildly infuriated that the church doesn't allow the 2 homeless people to live there?

[–] lemming934@lemmy.sdf.org 36 points 7 months ago

I think OP believes every town in the US has twice as many homeless people as churches, it doesnt need to be exactly 1 church and 2 homeless people.

But either way, that's probably not true. Since homeless people tend to be in larger cities.

But then again, lots of people become homless in the suburbs and then move to the city to get the social services. If churches in the suburbs housed a few people as they become homeless, it would probably help. It's better to keep people in their communities so they have a better chance of returning to housefullness.

But probably not that much, since homelessness rates are strongly correlated with housing prices, so expensive cities create more homelessness than cheap suburbs.

[–] RHOPKINS13@kbin.social 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not sure why you'd think OP is saying 1 church per town. Just that there are ~380k churches in the United States, and less than twice as many homeless people.

I agree, far too many people are left out in the cold at night when we have many public, climate-controlled buildings with working bathrooms and possibly even showers that are empty after a certain hour. If the homeless were able to regularly get a good night's sleep and a shower in, they might be more able to hold down jobs and become contributing members of society again.

Schools certainly would be great as a shelter after hours, most have gyms with showers, possibly laundry machines, and certainly ample space for someone to sleep with a sleeping bag. If we could just figure out a way to make sure everything stays clean for students to use the next day, no left-behind drugs, no vandalism, etc. that could be a wonderful solution.

My guess is that in most places the homeless population would easily fit within the gymnasium alone.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] JargonWagon@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They're implying that there are two homeless people for every church and that every church should house two homeless people to solve homelessness. Not agreeing with OP, just trying to answer your question.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago

and that every church should house two homeless people

Not even directly house. Even helping support those 2 people would go a long way toward demonstrating that churches actually do some good.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago (6 children)

That rate of homelessness seems like a wild underestimate. However, I don't know much about the southern united states other than that they basically export the homelessness they create to other states through bussing programs. So this number might be better calculated considering both the spatial distribution of homelessness and the spatial distribution of churches. With out knowing where the churches are and where the homeless are, the number is a bit beguiling. That being said, it does seem that its the areas with lots of churches that create the conditions for homelessness, and then those areas export the problem they create to other areas (rural red states have been bussing the homeless and other 'undesirables' to metro areas of blue states for decades, rather than fund and operate local solutions).

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip 7 points 7 months ago

You're reaching

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

My home town had four churches and no homeless people. What homeless people are those churches supposed to help?

Meanwhile, in the city I now live in, there's tons of churches and half of them give free food to the homeless every single day, and there's lines going around the block at all of them.

There is no magic bullet that can solve homelessness. Anything proposed must be a part of a larger solution. There are tons of proposals that, if actually done and not half-assed, would help immensely.

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I do not understand these downvotes. Like how dare you see churches that actually help the poor like they're supposed to?

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It's people downvoting because "Religion = bad".

When in reality it should be "Religion = institutions and institutions can be either good or bad or mix of both."

Edit: Spelling

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You are getting downvoted but you are unabashedly correct. The rhetorical goals behind the post are noble, but the suggested solution is infeasible to a degree that verges on laughable.

Homeless people need to live in homes, of which there are plenty being hoarded vacant by the ultra wealthy.

Homes for the homeless fixes homelessness. Guess what giving a homeless person a church to live in makes them? Still homeless.

In the worst case interpretation, this meme is using churches as a polemical meat shield to protect neoliberal and corporate interests.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Those churches might have already helped. I'm no fan of religion for it's various stupidities, but I am a fan of organized good will.

load more comments