Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_jaeo36c wrote

I'm saying this in total seriousness, so I hope it doesn't come off as a joke: have you guys considered reaching out to curtis sliwa about this? he's... extremely morally questionable but he is famous for starting a vigilante group and he is really into cat rescue. I can understand if that's not someone you'd want to get involved with though.


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_ja0pgbe wrote

> In February 2022, Jordan received criticism for justifying the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine by falsely claiming that the Revolution of Dignity was a coup led by the United States, European Union, and NATO.[14] She said, "In 2014, the U.S. helped overthrow Ukraine’s democratically elected leader in an illegal coup, helped install a fascist government and empowered a far right military all with the goal of destabilizing Russia."

it's amazing how easy it is to predict a politician's dipshit views on one subject just by knowing their views on an entirely unrelated subject. of course she's pro Russia.


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_ja0icep wrote

> Kristin Richardson Jordan, a far-left council member who represents Harlem and who proposed the street naming, called the honor “way overdue.”

> “It is actually not OK to erase black leaders who are not pleasing to white people,” she said during the vote. “I profoundly vote aye on Elijah Muhammad Way.”

of course it's her


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j787uqn wrote

I'm a little divided on the fearless girl one bc it sort of interferes with the preexisting bull statue in a way that seems a little unfair, but other than that yeah it's a great example. it doesn't have to be like an abstract representation of some deep tragedy to be worthwhile art. it's ok to have art that just looks cool jfc


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j6uavb7 wrote

I think the actual difference, in a big picture sense, is that those countries attack these problems on a national level, which is really difficult for anything in the US by design. that other person is sort of right in that nyc offering more services/private rooms etc will not improve its situation, because this will absolutely attract more homeless people to go to nyc. the west coast and hawaii are both experiencing this effect right now.

the situation can never be resolved when every major metropolitan area is essentially in a standoff with all the others over who can be the least appealing to homeless populations. only federal intervention can fix it at this point. I don't know what the path to that is, but cities or states acting unilaterally only leads to an endlessly increasing bill for homeless services.


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j6u9ux2 wrote

a lot of places essentially bus their homeless people to California, which means the west coast has been steadily taking in a higher and higher proportion of the chronically homeless as time goes on, and that group really frequently struggles w mental health and substance abuse issues.


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j6hk1cq wrote

yes it does? smg is saying that what they are doing is a, but that they should stop doing a and do b instead. windup is saying that there is no reason they can't do both a and b, because a has nothing to do with b. a happening does not preclude the city from doing b.


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j6bjhdm wrote

not being at war with Russia does not carry any obligation to not provide arms to Russia's opponent or to not sanction them. I have no idea what principles you think are being violated here.

it is simply your opinion that it was heavily implied. they did not state that they believe genocide is objectively wrong. without such a statement, it is senseless to try to start a debate about whether objective wrongness exists, as that isn't relevant to their point.


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j6asc09 wrote

"violating neutrality"? what neutrality? no one has an obligation to Russia to remain neutral. there is no violation.

additionally, the first person to bring up the concept of objective vs. subjective wrongness was yourself. the person you initially replied to did not say it was objectively wrong. they simply said it was wrong. if you believe that there is no such thing as objective wrongness, then you should have no problem with their statement, as it must be their own opinion. if you believe their opinion that genocide is wrong is incorrect, argue with that, don't attempt to set up a strawman about moral objectivism


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j5zgv0u wrote

I just don't think "what if I don't have 20k" makes a lot of sense as a question if the 20k is over 20 years, especially given that as an immigrant someones financial situation would likely be changing dramatically as they progress along the path from arriving to citizenship. that person also does agree with you that it should be cheaper so it's a little odd that you're stuck on it so much. what you guys actually disagree on is whether it's ethical to break the rules if you think the cost is too high


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j5zf6oi wrote

> One trustee allegedly told him, “I probably shouldn’t say this, the vote was very very close, but some people said that they were just more comfortable with Marek [Tyszkiewicz]. They should probably do some introspection as to why that is.” 

> Chu, who is gay, said he mentioned his husband throughout the interview, and he believes that made the board members “uncomfortable.” 

this is the quote in question, I think. not really as cut and dried as it's being presented. I wonder if the deliberations were recorded?