gallopingsnail

joined 2 years ago
[–] gallopingsnail 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

😮‍💨 I understand too well. "Average" single family homes in my area were like $400,000, now it's $820,000. Rents for single bedroom apartments went from about $800-900 month to $1,600+ per month. I live in a town of about 65,000 in the Rockies, middle of nowhere, like minimum 5 hour drive to a city with more than a million people, yet somehow, people are still flocking here from all across the country.

[–] gallopingsnail 2 points 1 year ago

My bad, thanks for the source!

[–] gallopingsnail 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think you may be mistaken.

By definition, if the user of the software is not free to do as they wish with the software, the software is not free/libre. It could fit the definition of open source, but it is not free/libre if you are restricting what the user can do with your source code.

And starting comments with "Wrong." Is just rude.

[–] gallopingsnail 20 points 1 year ago

Drivers hate this one brick

[–] gallopingsnail 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Dawg, slow down for a minute.

In your first comment, you say the extra armrests are there to keep "some homeless" (not even a homeless PERSON) off the bench for disabled individuals. You're saying that benches should have these installed because seating disabled people is more important than letting "some homeless" use it for a night's rest.

When others point out that a bench with armrests at the ends and no dividers could be used by both groups, you say "bUt YoU hAvE tO SiT oN tHe hOmELeSs" as if 2 people can't use a bench at the same time. It's a bench, not a chair, that's the whole point. What are you even arguing here, that if homeless people are allowed to use benches that they'll all be occupied, and they all will refuse to move, and we'll have to sit on the unhoused? Absolutely preposterous.

And then, when all this is pointed out to you, you say the rest of us have "degenerative" genes and can't hold 2 thoughts at the same time. Really? That's straight up far right rhetoric, bringing up the inferior genes shit.

Yes, unhoused people should absolutely have a place to go, but we don't need to build our cities to be hostile towards them.

TLDR: Go the fuck outside, get some help, go for a walk, call your mom, hell, even go talk to a homeless person, touch grass. I'm done with Lemmy for today, you should be too.

[–] gallopingsnail 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Because as we all know, without dividers every bench in the city would have a homeless person sleeping on it 24 hours a day non-stop, never allowing anyone to sit down ever again.

[–] gallopingsnail 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You should go outside.

[–] gallopingsnail 2 points 1 year ago

Sounds like a cope to me.

[–] gallopingsnail 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hang on, hang on, I think you missed it. It applies to "ALL PERSONS." You'll note that it does not include "unless you're an illegal immigrant."

[–] gallopingsnail 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
view more: ‹ prev next ›