this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
222 points (94.4% liked)

Memes

45886 readers
1762 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 hours ago

I'm hiding a homeless person in my home, which is risking eviction to keep someone off the streets. Here, most tenancies don't allow you to "sublet", the landlord legally gets the final say about who lives in their property.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

wait I'm confused how is the top middle picture anti-homeless architecture

[–] [email protected] 37 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Homeless people sleep on the vents for warmth.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

The vents are still accessible though? And you have these near mannequins to hang your stuff?

Edit: honest question, possibly unnecessary joke.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Let them eat cake. Try sleeping on them and report back to us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture

[–] [email protected] 22 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

I feel like we're talking past each other. I'm wondering how the weird human-shaped things added on top of the vents constitute hostile architecture - how are they meant to to discourage people from sleeping there? This is me trying to learn, I'm very aware that sleeping on vents isn't exactly comfortable but how do these things make it less so?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 12 hours ago

You'd probably have to lie between them instead of just looking at a photo, to assess if it's still possible.

Clearly they were put there with the intention of making it difficult/uncomfortable to lie down on the subway vent. If they were installed incompetently that doesn't make them unhostile though, it just makes them ineffective for their obviously intended purpose.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I see what you're digging at, I was confused by them too. Hostile architecture meets just plain terrible design?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Right? It looks like there was an attempt (gold star) at hostility but they still wanted it to look somewhat aesthetically pleasing and mostly forgot about the hostile part? Or maybe I'm just not seeing most of the hostile part, that's what I'm trying to figure out.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago

Nah I think you got it. Veiling art as hostile architecture is fairly common so I think the artist lead took over and they forgot the intent of ruining someone's ability to sleep haha

[–] [email protected] 22 points 16 hours ago

Folks lie on those vents in the winter because they're warm. Putting stuff in the way makes that harder

[–] [email protected] 9 points 16 hours ago

They look human like, maybe they are meant to cast a shadow or something to make people uncomfortable like somebody is watching?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 15 hours ago

There’s a literal glowie downvoting every socialist thing 😂

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

then why has china got so many homeless people?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Because China is capitalist, despite being formally led by a communist party. It has private property on means of production, and it is defining Chinese economy just like any other capitalist one. Socialism, by definition, requires social ownership of means of production, which is not the case in China; the term was appropriated and wrongfully used by US and several other countries to define economies with more state control and/or social policies, but this is simply not what socialism is.

Interestingly, China has entire ghost towns full of homes ready to accept people in - but, as in any capitalist economy, homes are seen as an investment, and state subsidies are low, pricing out the homeless. They have more than enough homes, they just chose to pursue a system that doesn't make homes and homeless meet.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 hours ago

Not actually democratic, thus not socialist.