Microblog Memes

6027 readers

1222 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
Be nice.
No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1807

Benches have been removed for your inconvenience (cdn.masto.host)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

211 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Stolen from here: https://social.marxist.network/@yogthos/113583918563324620

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Please go back and look at my initial reply, I literally said the opposite.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

This was what you said:

As I said, if they had somewhere else to go to safely use, they wouldn’t be doing it on library benches. That’s who the NIMBY comment was directed toward, the councilmen or whoever that vote to remove those benches, but are almost certainly against having the actual solution because NIMBY.

It was a library decision. The decision was because they were doing it in front of kids.

Libraries are funded by taxpayers. The library was getting complaints about kids walking past homeless people on the benches near the entrance shooting up and smoking meth. They were asked to leave multiple times, but they would just come back. So, there are three options here:

Call the cops. They didn't want to do that for reasons I think should be obvious.
Just let them keep doing it. This seems to be your preferred option and it's a good way to get a library shut down via tax referendum.
Remove some of the benches.

But sure, they could have just gotten shut down and then there would be almost no free services for the homeless at all. That would be a possibility.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think what Prole is saying is that it shouldn't fall to the library in the first place. The city should be responsible for finding a solution. I don't think their comment was opposed to your actions (although I also initially interpreted it that way).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yes. Well mostly yes.

It was a bit of both. Mostly the former, but I did take umbrage with the part about people complaining that they smell and are a nuisance and "maybe I'm bias because my wife, but I tend to agree" or whatever it was. So I guess I purposefully made it open to being interpreted as having both meanings if one so chooses. I figured they'd only take it personal if they themselves were a NIMBYs — a self-report of sorts.

But yes mostly what you said.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

My initial comment:

NIMBY City, USA.

If only they had somewhere to go other than a Library…

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

So I should just ignore the comment after that?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

No? What about my comments conflict in any way? I'm just saying that they should have somewhere safe to do it so the library is never a necessary option to begin with. But there aren't because NIMBYs prevent that shit from happening.

Perhaps I'm overgeneralizing, and your specific situation is different.