Legitimately not sure you’re joking, so I’m just going to drop this in case you aren’t: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Americans (which is citing https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT1Y2022.B03001?q=B03001)

In 2022, Mexican Americans made up 11.2% of the US population and 58.9% of all Hispanic Americans.

In the US, yeah, you are more likely to speak to a Mexican than any other hispanic Spanish speaker.

I’m going to go against the grain and point out that these types of people generally live in areas where there are very few foreigners. The closest country with Spanish as their native language is Mexico. Given the lack of diverse exposure to people of different backgrounds, you can see whymany might default to Spanish speakers = Mexicans. That said, they are also likely to be undereducated as well…

It sounds like they think the movie is good, it just took too much money to make given it’s lack of appeal to a wide audience. I think that makes sense.

Sorry, my original comment is a bit accusatory. I did not mean to say you (specifically) are the problem. I intended to say that more level-headed Christians are not what you see portrayed in media because it’s the absolute psychos that are in positions of power, so that’s what you (general) see in the media.

Persecution complex

I would never claim to be persecuted, but you specifically seem to paint with a broad brush.

Where are the outraged Christians trying to take their religion back?

There is nothing to “take back.” True followers of Christ see through these extremists in government as easily as they see through a some snake-worshipping Christian cult. Christians have always known there will be many that will pervert the truth, so they are not surprised. The problem is people like you just assume they are sitting around endorsing this behavior the media makes it seem all Chritians endorse this behavior, but the challenge is the same as always: true Christians do not have the wealth and power to control political/religious messaging around the world. It kind of goes against some key points in their theology.

You might need to add sudo, OP

I’m not a natalist, but let’s be real: the number if deaths caused by gun violence miniscule relative to the entire population. That said, 6 out of every 100000 kids die of firearm injuries and is the leading cause of death in children. Gun control is something that need to be improved in the country for sure. I’m just not sure it is a significant threat to “Clara.” A much bigger threat, imo, is the state of education and reliability of information today.

You got a source for that last sentence? I’m inclined to degree, but I’d love to see a a concrete explanation proving it.

30 Rock

In Columbus, you would be considered just a normal guy. You could easily find a community there.

Addiction was simply an example of why a homeless person might not be able to handle money reponsibly. It was not an assumption about what made them homeless, nor was it a judgement on their character. I don’t disagree with anything your saying, so I don’t see the problem. And I don’t refuse giving any aid. I just think giving to an organization is more likely to help a person than giving to them directly. Maybe if I was handing out in volumes of $1k it’d be enough to change soneone’s like, but obvioualy most can’t afford to do that.

Acknowledging crippling dependence != judgement

Do you know how addiction works?

I am not responding to all this but I cannot let this slide:

So this is another disengenous oversimplification. You will take the position that a homeless person can sustain a hard drug addiction from panhandling, yet they would not be able to afford a motel room for the night, or an extended stay, and begin their climb back into society. This is purely a moral judgement on your part.

You acknowledge that dependence is a need (which I agree with!) but you think that an addict will magically overcome their addiction when handed the money they could use to sustain the addiction? The justification you’re using for handing them money (i.e. relieving withdrawal) is the same reason I don’t expect an addict to buy a night at the motel over their drugs. The reasons are biological not moral. You must be operating on another definition of moral or something.

That’s kind of an impossible question to answer because the “they” is unknowable in your question.

Exactly. The easiest thing to do is ask them what they want. Personally when they ask for money, I tell them I don’t hand out money and ask them if there’s something else they need. It is a good way to actually have a conversation with them and get them something they need.

I also want to be clear, I’m not going to judge anyone for giving money to someone in need. It is better than not trying to help at all. I just personally believe it is better not to give homeless persons money.

What world do you live in that a fiver can buy someone a substantive quantity of hard, addictive drugs?

I never claimed this. The accumulation of multiple fivers from different people can eventually get you drugs. You’re also neglecting cheaper substances like alcohol. Basically the money you accumulate from asking for money will get you alcohol/drugs faster than it will get you shelter.

You’re being completely disengenious here and asserting more moral policing.

Where have I inserted my morals here? I do not think people don’t deserve help because they are addicts. I merely acknowledge that they need a different kind of assistance than my pocket change will provide.

Offering food is fine, if they are hungry and they want it. But if they decline food when that is not the type of help they need is not some admission of guilt, as it is so often portrayed to be. Often, they’re rightly skeptical of food from a stranger. Some will accept it to be polite but throw it out for their own safety. It only takes me and ~9 or so other people offering them that fiver to pay for a night’s stay in a cheap motel. Offering supplies if they refuse your food is also great to help them with urban camping, but too many supplies is also a liability where they now need to be concerned about theft. Packing light is just as much a survival tactic.

What a tangent dude. Everything I offer is always based on what they request. I do not ever give them anything they didn’t ask for. If they got something that’s a burden to them, it’s because they asked for it. I’m not shoving food down their throat or forcing socks on their feet.

Nobody has ever gotten a home from food and supplies, but they sure as hell do with money.

Show me the story of the homeless person who accumulated enough fivers to afford rent.

My philosophy only acknowledges my help in passing as what it is: a short term relief for a complicated issue. If they use it for food, it will only last them a few meals at best. The food, however will not harm them. If they use it for socks, they will eventually wear out. Again, the socks will not harm them. If they use it for drugs/alcohol, sure it might give them relief for a while, but it might also just allow their addiction to persist. I just choose not to gamble on the last point by sending my money to nonprofits instead of leaving it up to people who are probably not in the right headspace for responsible decisions. If you want to give them money, fine. But don’t chastise me having conversations with people and need and trying to help them in a way I’m comfortable with.

That is generally true, but not in this context. If you are an addict, having $50 doesn’t enable you to improve your life. It just enables you to buy your next fix. I don’t say this to demonize anyone, but the point is that many homeless have mental or physiological issues that make it very hard for them to spend money wisely. Handing out money is slapping a bandaid on the issue or possibly worsening their situation. Chronic homelessness cannot be fixed by a few good natured individual’s pocket change. It requires actual rehabilitation, which is incredibly hard.

OK, what do you think they can do with the $50 that they manage to accumulate that will seriously benefit them?

They likely can’t buy shelter with a fiver or whatever you decide to give them either. The truth is that charities, food banks, and churches are much better equipped to supply the homeless with what they need because it isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution, which is why I donate to those organizations instead of trying to hand out money.

Let’s also be real: not wanting to enable addictions is not about policing morality. It’s about harm prevention. The drugs and alcohol they may buy with your money is likely to do more harm than good in a very practical sense and has nothing to do with my personal beliefs.

At the end of the day, your money won’t help them a majority of the time. Offering food or supplies gives them the opportunity to tell me what they need short term rather than me guessing or leaving things up to chance. Long term solutions are provided by other organizations, and your money is better spent there.