this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
35 points (76.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43780 readers
882 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
'Anti-homeless' = they said the transit authorities should crack down on people smoking meth on the train and who generally make commutes unsafe and uncomfortable for passengers.
Are you people going to chase this poor person all over this damn site? Get a grip lol.
No, thats not what they said. They used specific words and they provided an entirely different meaning. You've even replaced very important keywords.
I'm the person who commented this. I took the train in LA for a long time since I want to stop using cars. My experiences there with the lack of security made me realize why hardly anyone takes it. My problem was with the smoking meth part. All I got for my trouble was someone accusing me of not really living there and a ban before I could explain myself.
I've alread apologized about the way I said it and tried to clarify yet all I get is more hate and people saying to let them smoke it in peace. Hardly anyone wants to have a real good faith dialogue and instead just reactively dunked on me for uttering the word "homeless" for someone who is clearly doing illegal things in public. If a single adjective is enough to be considered inflammatory then I'm worried we'll ever be able to have civil discourse that goes beyond an echo chamber.
The comment didn't appear to be good faith dialogue. If you thought it did, that would explain your confusion. No one owes you any sort of good faith dialogue after that point. You take the lesson about being less careless with words and they can have their strict peace. I don't see the value in the complaints and whining after that point. It seemed like you had a particular axe to grind with one specific event and chose to try and goad them elsewhere. Why else call a bunch of far leftists conservatives if not trying to kick the bees nest. Your whole approach with your question was extremely intentional to try and attack them. It was not done harmlessly and it was even kind of childish.
Not everyone needs to like you. You will gain nothing of value and simply add negativity into the world with your continual pestering about it. Like what is even your end goal? What do you want to actually happen?
Give us the quotes then. You are interpreting them in the worst possible way, rather than how the average person who has to commute would.
It wasn't drug users. It was homeless people. It's in the screenshot that's on this forum. He said they should be chasing homeless people off the trains. "Clarification" was later. It was pointed out to him homeless people and drug users aren't even one and the same (a poor mistake I saw you made in your comment as well).
If you didn't even see the comments, why are you defending them? You're interpreting them (oddly without having seen them I guess) in a braindead way to assume no malice or negativity were in the comments.