It’s a critique on capitalism, where we have the technology and products to improve our quality of life but restrict access to them for a considerable percentage of humas. You’re welcome.
Even in a utopian communist society there would be showrooms for products, to help people select what best meets their sleep/medical needs. Those beds would be unused too.
It is a separate issue, that the showroom is not responsible for, that resulted in a homeless person not having a bed.
Systemic issues have systemic solutions. If you try to apply a local solution to a systemic problem, you just kicked the can. (As in, letting homeless people use the showroom beds).
The idea is that a socialist/communist utopia wouldn’t concern itself with the pursuit and hoarding of capital. So the “showroom” wouldn’t really be a concept. We’d have catalogues and stores, but the fancy aspirational dressing that comes with the wastes of space known as furniture stores would be less prevalent.
There’s always going to be people who fall through the cracks in your safety net because they for some (usually mental health related) reason just can’t integrate into the framework of society. You can offer help, but even without conditions attached there’s going to be people who will refuse it.
I don’t think the issue in America is that we’ve tried the best we can but some have slipped through the cracks. More along the lines of we’ve tried nothing and we are all out of ideas.
The systemic solution is not a utopian communist society, but a system which provides beds for those who need it. The picture highlights this problem.This is not a critique on the showroom, or the store owner (which is how you interpreted it), this is a critique on society. You were the one who muddied the waters (and assumed that someone is proposing a communist society, another argument fallacy). The point is not “letting homeless people use the showroom beds” but rather “letting homeless people use beds”.
Considering we have multiple people suggesting that the homeless person should, in fact, be allowed to sleep in that bed, I think that a lot of people are interpreting it that way.
I didn’t muddy anything. I handled multiple points. The second point in my comment is the one you are discussing.
Further, it is not “another argument” fallacy when “capitalism” is written on the photo. The prominent differing economic model is communism or like systems, where needs are systemically met before profits are considered. So it is implied one can discuss other economic models by the presence of “capitalism” in the source material.
The part where you did actually muddy the waters is that you assumed that the picture depicts problems in a “showroom - homeless person” context, which is clearly not the case (as you contradictingly say yourself and even recognize when you said: “when “capitalism” is written on the photo”). The picture clearly criticizes capitalism as a economic system, but you wanted to make the showroom the focus point of the photo. That is muddying the waters. You dismiss the original critique. Or at least that’s how I read your comment. The difference between “I was talking about multiple points” and “muddying the waters” is not that big.
On the other part, yeah, fair enough. I would compare it to a “utopian socialist society” rather than communistic, but sure whatever. I mean there are countries in the world where taking this picture is very easy, and some (socialist) countries where it’s take a bit of effort to find a situation like this to photograph in the first place (most nordic european countries, for example).
The whole point of the image we are both commenting is a critique on capitalism. You are moving the point slightly towards “critique on showroom owners”.
However let’s not get sidetracked here. In a utopian society there would be showrooms, yes. But the person would not be forced to sleep outside without a bed in such a society, be there showrooms or not. That is the point. Capitalism allows this, a socialist society doesn’t (just look at the countries with least homeless people and you’ll see)
I am fixating on the thing that relates to this picture. It seems to me (honestly, I don’t mean to come off as an ass) that your 2nd point of discussion is very much my “muddying the water” point. I don’t want to discuss that point, as that was totally irrelevant here.
If I understood correctly, your 2 points were: (I’m paraphrasing, but)
“I don’t understand, why showroom owners should let homeless people sleep inside their premises”
and
“every other economic system besides capitalism also has these qualities”
Right? And I think I have provided arguments against both of these. What am I missing?
You’d be surprised by how far just caring can go. And by that, I mean genuinely, empathically, caring.
Depends a lot on who is doing the caring. For instance, if a homeless person has infinite empathy towards another one, not a lot will happen. If a particurarily unskilled politician has a lot of empathy, what they do with it might be a net negative.
So I kinda disagree with the sentiment here. Empathy alone does about as much as thoughts and prayers. Empathy isn’t even required in order to help a lot of people. You can be the driest, most temperature-room person on the planet and do good things.
You would still need to the wherewithal to identify that help is needed. Be it empathy from within or external, if no one cared it would never reach even the lukiest of warm persons desk.
I don’t get it… is that store supposed to let people in to sleep on their beds?
Just a statement about how we have the resources readily available yet unobtainable to some.
Lemmy. Huh. It gets tiring aftet a while.
Go outside then.
It’s a critique on capitalism, where we have the technology and products to improve our quality of life but restrict access to them for a considerable percentage of humas. You’re welcome.
Even in a utopian communist society there would be showrooms for products, to help people select what best meets their sleep/medical needs. Those beds would be unused too.
It is a separate issue, that the showroom is not responsible for, that resulted in a homeless person not having a bed.
Systemic issues have systemic solutions. If you try to apply a local solution to a systemic problem, you just kicked the can. (As in, letting homeless people use the showroom beds).
No. In utopian society there wouldn’t be the person who doesn’t have a bed.
Ok? That’s not contested in my comment.
The idea is that a socialist/communist utopia wouldn’t concern itself with the pursuit and hoarding of capital. So the “showroom” wouldn’t really be a concept. We’d have catalogues and stores, but the fancy aspirational dressing that comes with the wastes of space known as furniture stores would be less prevalent.
Then you missed the point.
There’s always going to be people who fall through the cracks in your safety net because they for some (usually mental health related) reason just can’t integrate into the framework of society. You can offer help, but even without conditions attached there’s going to be people who will refuse it.
I don’t think the issue in America is that we’ve tried the best we can but some have slipped through the cracks. More along the lines of we’ve tried nothing and we are all out of ideas.
The systemic solution is not a utopian communist society, but a system which provides beds for those who need it. The picture highlights this problem.This is not a critique on the showroom, or the store owner (which is how you interpreted it), this is a critique on society. You were the one who muddied the waters (and assumed that someone is proposing a communist society, another argument fallacy). The point is not “letting homeless people use the showroom beds” but rather “letting homeless people use beds”.
Considering we have multiple people suggesting that the homeless person should, in fact, be allowed to sleep in that bed, I think that a lot of people are interpreting it that way.
I didn’t muddy anything. I handled multiple points. The second point in my comment is the one you are discussing.
Further, it is not “another argument” fallacy when “capitalism” is written on the photo. The prominent differing economic model is communism or like systems, where needs are systemically met before profits are considered. So it is implied one can discuss other economic models by the presence of “capitalism” in the source material.
The part where you did actually muddy the waters is that you assumed that the picture depicts problems in a “showroom - homeless person” context, which is clearly not the case (as you contradictingly say yourself and even recognize when you said: “when “capitalism” is written on the photo”). The picture clearly criticizes capitalism as a economic system, but you wanted to make the showroom the focus point of the photo. That is muddying the waters. You dismiss the original critique. Or at least that’s how I read your comment. The difference between “I was talking about multiple points” and “muddying the waters” is not that big.
On the other part, yeah, fair enough. I would compare it to a “utopian socialist society” rather than communistic, but sure whatever. I mean there are countries in the world where taking this picture is very easy, and some (socialist) countries where it’s take a bit of effort to find a situation like this to photograph in the first place (most nordic european countries, for example).
The whole point of the image we are both commenting is a critique on capitalism. You are moving the point slightly towards “critique on showroom owners”.
However let’s not get sidetracked here. In a utopian society there would be showrooms, yes. But the person would not be forced to sleep outside without a bed in such a society, be there showrooms or not. That is the point. Capitalism allows this, a socialist society doesn’t (just look at the countries with least homeless people and you’ll see)
None of which I contest. I discussed 2! things.
You are fixating on the first.
I am fixating on the thing that relates to this picture. It seems to me (honestly, I don’t mean to come off as an ass) that your 2nd point of discussion is very much my “muddying the water” point. I don’t want to discuss that point, as that was totally irrelevant here. If I understood correctly, your 2 points were: (I’m paraphrasing, but) “I don’t understand, why showroom owners should let homeless people sleep inside their premises” and “every other economic system besides capitalism also has these qualities”
Right? And I think I have provided arguments against both of these. What am I missing?
According to all the kids here, yes.
“kids”
You are not superior for not having empathy for homeless people
Do you think the homeless need our empathy or do they need something else?
I certainly think they will get nothing if people don’t have empathy for them.
You’d be surprised by how far just caring can go. And by that, I mean genuinely, empathically, caring.
Depends a lot on who is doing the caring. For instance, if a homeless person has infinite empathy towards another one, not a lot will happen. If a particurarily unskilled politician has a lot of empathy, what they do with it might be a net negative.
So I kinda disagree with the sentiment here. Empathy alone does about as much as thoughts and prayers. Empathy isn’t even required in order to help a lot of people. You can be the driest, most temperature-room person on the planet and do good things.
You would still need to the wherewithal to identify that help is needed. Be it empathy from within or external, if no one cared it would never reach even the lukiest of warm persons desk.