this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2026
800 points (98.1% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

47398 readers
747 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that. Please post actually infuriating posts to !actually_infuriating@lemmy.world

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/ExplicitContent


-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. If your post better fits !Actually_Infuriating put it there.

-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, but attribution is not required in any way. No links to Reddit in post body


-If you would like to provide a source link, do so in the comments but not in the post body.

...

...


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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 78 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Why are they so obsessed with making sure the homeless don't get a basic, involuntary need? Like just shoot them if you are going to be this cruel, and you are going to kill them anyway.

[–] raze2012@lemmy.world 49 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The cruelty is the point. They'll say a homeless person doesn't deserve a fee hundred bucks a month to get back on their feet, but they'll spend 100 grand a year per person to make them more miserable. It's just good job security (and satisfaction) for the police unions.

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 24 points 1 day ago

They spend YOUR money too, possibly making you homeless in the process.

Yeah, they're just fucking plain sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissistic, egolatrical and evil.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago

Cruelty is definitely a big part of it but also NIMBYism. If we don't see the homeless people, we don't have to think about them and try to find solutions.

[–] Colonel_Panic_@eviltoast.org 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Capitalism requires there to be a threat of what happens if you "don't work hard enough" or don't play ball with those in power. Nevermind that most homeless people aren't that way due to laziness or anything they did wrong, just unlucky situations or medical debt or being laid off at an inconvenient time or something.

It would be far cheaper to our country to have free housing, UBI, universal healthcare and social programs everywhere than what we are doing now, but what we are doing now makes about 1,000 people INSANELY wealthy at the expense of the other 342,000,000 people in the country, so that's what we keep doing for some stupid reason.

Maybe one day everyone will wake up and stop enabling systems that create this shithole.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There's about 40 other capitalist countries where losing your job doesn't end in homelessness and medical debt is not even a thing. And we have universal Healthcare, paid annual leave, paid parental leave, unlimited paid sick leave, unions,...

Basically there's only one country where all of that doesn't exist...

[–] TransNeko@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

where are these countries? The only one I know of uses 3 methods to prevent Homelessness.

Method 1: USA tax dollars pay for all of their healthcare.

Method 2: great unemployment benefits.

Method 3: (their most preferred method of Homelessness prevention) Step 1- Find an intact house with Palestinians in it. Step 2- shoot all of them in the heads including the children. Step 3- clean up. Step 4- give house to a filthy Israeli genocide supporter.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 17 hours ago

Apparently there's no English articlr for the new version, but here's the old one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCrgergeld

[–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Medical debt might not be a thing but losing your home because you lost your job definitely happens in Europe.

[–] ThanksForAllTheFish@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, losing your home after losing your job definitely happens in Europe. The difference is that many European countries have stronger safety nets: they may help with rent, provide temporary or social housing, or use Housing First, so unemployment is less likely to end in rough sleeping. They generally won’t simply pay off your mortgage, and the help isn’t guaranteed, but keeping people stably housed can be cheaper in the long run than repeatedly dealing with homelessness. It also makes finding and keeping work much easier. In the UK, for example, eligible people may receive Jobseeker’s Allowance and help with their rent through Universal Credit, or Housing Benefit in certain circumstances.

[–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

And yet losing your job can still quiet easily lead to homelessness. "There are capitalist countries where that doesn't happen" isn't an argument if it does in fact happen in those capitalist countries. We might have better safety nets, but they are band-aids that only slow the function of capitalism, they don't solve it's inherent problems.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

In Germany they will pay your rent indefinitely - as long as you're trying to find a job. Some people abuse the system, of course, but in general works well and you see very little people sleepng on the street.

[–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Germany

I'm sure the ~300,000 rough sleepers are happy to know you don't notice them.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 2 hours ago

The Federal Government acknowledges that homelessness in Germany is caused by multiple factors, "such as financial, domestic, and individual psychosocial reasons" and that it is not merely rooted in the lack of affordable accommodation.

It's a free country, if you want to be homeless, or you have mental health issues you don't want to treat, the government cannot force you into a house.

[–] whereitsat@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

they're still sticking to the trope that the homeless are lazy, uneducated bums; at best they're what happens to good citizens after falling into addiction.

they all WANT to be there, but we definitely don't want them!!!

but that narrative should be falling apart as conditions deteriorate...

but you know, american education lol.

[–] Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"BrO, bUt ThE mErItOcRaCy, ThE uNiVeRsE gIvEs YoU wHaT yOu AcTuAlLy DeSiRe WiThIn ThE dEpThS oF yOuR iNnEr SoUl"

[–] myyass@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

made me think of the square girl video lol

[–] myplacedk@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Yes, I really can't wrap my way around their way of thinking.

There are people who have such big issues in life, and such bad options, that a bench in a park is their best option for a place to sleep. That is horrible, and something must be done. And politicians think removing their best option is a solution?

If people can show enough compassion to invest in getting these people back on their feet, if you are really just going to ignore them - at least to that. Let them be.

If we're talking drunk people causing issues, and they need to learn to go home instead - then I'd get it. Not my preferred solution, but I'd get it.

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 9 points 1 day ago

I think everyone CAN get together to make a difference, everyone who cares.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago

drunk and disorderly is arrestable. This is only for stopping sleeping 100%

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

And politicians think removing their best option is a solution?

Because it gets them votes. The politicians aren't the problem, they merely reflect public attitudes.

[–] Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They cause public attitudes in most cases, so...

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What makes you think that the average politician is actually a leader, rather than just a follower who pays attention to polls? That would imply they have a spine, which seems unlikely.

You have a good point, actually 🤣

But people prefer to follow the one who "knows everything" and that never shows any kind of doubt or insecurity.

C'mon, precisely because they're in the "Dunning-Kruger" sector of the bell curve is why they can have a big influence in a lot of people.

[–] Kaerkob@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I think some of the politicians really are part of the problem.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We need societal-level solutions to homelessness. We need housing, free healthcare, free mental healthcare, criminal justice reform, and more. But until we can do that, the reality is, concentrations of the homeless are associated with higher crime, reduced patronage of businesses, and decreased property values.

It super duper sucks, but homelessness is a really difficult problem for cities and property owners they aren't equipped to address. Since they can't fix the problem, they instead focus on keeping the problem away.

It's all so fucked.

This feels like a very US-specific way of framing it. In the UK and much of Europe, many of those “societal-level solutions” already exist to varying degrees: healthcare and mental healthcare free at the point of use, unemployment support, benefits towards rent, social and temporary housing, legal homelessness-prevention duties, and Housing First programmes.

They’re nowhere near perfect. We have social-housing shortages, benefit limits, long healthcare waiting lists and plenty of people who still fall through the gaps. But the response doesn’t have to begin and end with moving homeless people somewhere less visible to protect property values.

Your point that individual businesses and property owners cannot solve homelessness is completely fair. That’s precisely why they should sit behind a publicly funded safety net which helps keep people housed and supports them back into stability, instead of leaving everyone involved to deal with the consequences.

[–] Demdaru@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Lemmy lol. Answer is simple. Everyday folks don't like seein' them, as they consider them lowlifes. City is doing "something" about it, so city is doing good. There are shelters, so it's not like these people have no options.

Everyday folk don't think about shelters being overcrowded, homeless being alcoholics/druggies just to cope with their situation and thus not being able to use shelters, or the fact that I've seen software devs, here on lemmy, mention being homeless or being in the past.

Most people are reactive, not proactive. They see dirty homeless person, they feel yucky, they tell said person to gtfo without thinking about the fact that it's a person in the first place.

[–] Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah but being proactive is illegal unless you're part of some organization and making profit somewhere along the way.

By that I mean it's fucked up in the US, how I cant by a few boxes of frozen burgers, cook them make a bunch of burgers and start handing food out; unless I was part of some organization that somewhere along the way is making money or hype to make sure their other businesses get business.

[–] Demdaru@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

...wait, making field kitchens is illegal in USA? I am not living there so I wouldn't know. Can't ya like throw barbeque in your backyard or smth?

[–] Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Yeah, you can do the BBQ thing. You, just can't for instance buy a used RV and climb on top of it and start handing out cooked food to everyone.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The bourgeois don't want to look at the plebians.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Sure, commuters with jobs are the bourgeoisie.

[–] HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Because people are more comfortable letting homeless people starve or freeze to death than they are with shooting them.

Same reason people are happy to buy ham from the grocery store but would feel uncomfortable slitting a pig's throat.