[mAritz]

Let's say we go with your dystopian wishes and round them all up and ship them off to some other place - with all the problems that then causes just ignored.

Someone now loses their home after that - let's say to a fire and they didn't have it insured for that because the house insurance market is either dysfunctional or close to it in some parts of the US. You now have 1 homeless person again. Do you also ship them off again?

Do you just forever keep shipping off the unlucky and downtrodden people to some other place?

What if they lost their house, but have insurance paying soon, the insurance company is just dragging their feet for a few months. They will be fine, they will be able to pay for a new house or rebuilding. But until then they might be without housing. Ship them off anyways?

[piloto_ciego]

Let’s be real, the world view informing this sort of carceral idea typically only has one solution, and usually it’s a “final” sort of one.

The goal is not to get rid of the homeless in the city, it’s to “get rid of them.” And -consciously or unconsciously- at its core, the goal is to have a group of weak people who are easy to oppress.

The rhetoric hasn’t basically changed in 90 years. It’s disgusting and frankly I’m shocked to see this sort of talk on HN.

Perhaps Reddit was running interference for us…