The unhoused are a safe target socially speaking. Only actual leftists (I would hazard a guess at <10% of the US population, a large share of whom are young enough to be disregarded) would call someone out for suggesting we need a final solution for homelessness.
Libs generally believe in institutions over people. They blame the unhoused for being unhoused (typically due to "all being drug addicts") rather than the government and, more broadly, capitalism.
Most libs aren't politically engaged and just want the unhoused gone, but don't care how. If the only solution presented to this is fascism, the libs will become (at least tacitly) supporters of fascism.
Libs are insulated from the suffering inflicted by capitalism, and seeing an unhoused person makes them feel unsafe as they realize that the bubble of security in which they live is actually an illusion.
America lives in a culture of terror of the other, which has been exacerbated by the bourgeois media and most policitians. Unhoused people committing crimes or being otherwise violent are also disproportionately amplified by bourgeois media, which increases this effect.
most americans have most of their wealth tied up in a home that they own
That may be true for older but a whole lot of millennials and younger rent or have some other non-ownership living arrangement, which makes it especially fucked when they still punch down on the unhoused.
I had a former roommate who was fucked over for hours and remained at the bottom of a big box retail totem pole for years until he was unceremoniously laid off and he always blamed his "lazy" coworkers for that.
most americans have most of their wealth tied up in a home that they own
I always hear this, and I know the stats say it’s like 60%, but to be quite honest I don’t fucking believe that. Who are these 60% of people that own their homes? I don’t know them. Some of my friends parents (not even all) own a home, and one of my friends. If I estimated based on people I know I would say around 1/5th of Americans own their home.
I mean it just depends on the area you're in and your background right? If you live somewhere with a higher COL the rate is lower (42-55% in DC, CA and NY) locally. Also it's calculated as (homes occupied by owner)/(all occupied homes).
So like if you have 2 houses in a neighborhood, both owned by Bourgeois Bobby and he lives in one and rents the neighboring one to a group of 4 roommates, that's a 50% home ownership rate.
If you added a third house owned by Family Fred and Family Francine, a married couple, who also live with the following adults who don't own the home: Francine's ailing mother, adult son Chuck, adult daughter Samantha and Chuck's boyfriend Tom who they let move in because he was going to be homeless otherwise.
66% home ownership rate in this neighborhood now. Mind you Fred and Francine can own 3% equity in the house and owe the bank 97% of the houses value: they still count as a home owning household.
EDIT: to clarify, most of my point here is that most people would say 1/11 of the people in this neighborhood, 3/11 of we're being generous, own a home. The rate is calculated in a way that maybe is misleading.
So like if you have 2 houses in a neighborhood, both owned by Bourgeois Bobby and he lives in one and rents the neighboring one to a group of 4 roommates, that's a 50% home ownership rate
Ah yes okay, so a 60% home ownership rate is a lie. The right way to calculate this situation would be a 20% home ownership rate, not 50%, as 1 in 5 people owns the home they live in.
Being deliberately miscalculated to tell a lie does explain why that number feels like bullshit.
I think there is also the fear to be as them at one point in time.
For all the reasons barrbaric wrote that is something they want to avoid. I do disagree that libs are insulated from the suffering inflicted by capitalism. However wanting to avoid becoming a "non-person" in their view is quite important, too.
Because liberals believe that 1. Inequality is good and natural, and that 2. People get/earn what they deserve
When you talk about making things better for the poorest of the poor (according to them: the worst people, because of course), you are challenging their core beliefs about how the world works and their sense of justice in the meritocracy they claim to love
There's REALLY mask off stuff thats from genuine fascists but there's still otherwise fairly normal libs doing more soft mask off stuff or not totally disagreeing with the fascists and thats what bothers me because at least on reddit the unhoused seem to be the issue that brings out that side of them the most.
there's still otherwise fairly normal libs doing more soft mask off stuff or not totally disagreeing with the fascists
Agreed, but this is a really important difference.
Libs can get moved either way. Put them in a room with a bunch of fascists and they'll probably go along. But put them in a room with a bunch of people talking about housing first, or guaranteed basic income, or the evils of landlords, and they'll probably go along with that, too. The trick is getting them to reject the bad things and push the good things on their own, that is, to make them leftists.
Mistaking libs for fascists is bad analysis and actively harmful to growing the left.
As is the case with many other subjects, they'll agree with a surprising amount of leftist points until you label them "socialism" or start referencing AES states. Progressive ones will agree with basically all our reasons about why landlords are bad, and may even agree with "we should just take their rental properties" -- especially if framed in the context of local reactionary landlords and their influence on local politics -- but you'll lose them talking about Mao. Your more mainstream Dems might draw the line at rent control, but will at least talk about it, and will nod along to everything you say about enforcing existing housing laws or expanding renter protections.
You'll of course have some neolib psychos or lib landlords who'll have far more reactionary opinions, too.
Why is it that the unhoused are the issue that makes liberals go mask off the most?
I figure it's a combination of several things:
deleted by creator
That may be true for older
but a whole lot of millennials and younger rent or have some other non-ownership living arrangement, which makes it especially fucked when they still punch down on the unhoused.
My roommate used to BE unhoused and punches down at the unhoused -_-
I had a former roommate who was fucked over for hours and remained at the bottom of a big box retail totem pole for years until he was unceremoniously laid off and he always blamed his "lazy" coworkers for that.
I always hear this, and I know the stats say it’s like 60%, but to be quite honest I don’t fucking believe that. Who are these 60% of people that own their homes? I don’t know them. Some of my friends parents (not even all) own a home, and one of my friends. If I estimated based on people I know I would say around 1/5th of Americans own their home.
I mean it just depends on the area you're in and your background right? If you live somewhere with a higher COL the rate is lower (42-55% in DC, CA and NY) locally. Also it's calculated as (homes occupied by owner)/(all occupied homes).
So like if you have 2 houses in a neighborhood, both owned by Bourgeois Bobby and he lives in one and rents the neighboring one to a group of 4 roommates, that's a 50% home ownership rate.
If you added a third house owned by Family Fred and Family Francine, a married couple, who also live with the following adults who don't own the home: Francine's ailing mother, adult son Chuck, adult daughter Samantha and Chuck's boyfriend Tom who they let move in because he was going to be homeless otherwise.
66% home ownership rate in this neighborhood now. Mind you Fred and Francine can own 3% equity in the house and owe the bank 97% of the houses value: they still count as a home owning household.
EDIT: to clarify, most of my point here is that most people would say 1/11 of the people in this neighborhood, 3/11 of we're being generous, own a home. The rate is calculated in a way that maybe is misleading.
Ah yes okay, so a 60% home ownership rate is a lie. The right way to calculate this situation would be a 20% home ownership rate, not 50%, as 1 in 5 people owns the home they live in.
Being deliberately miscalculated to tell a lie does explain why that number feels like bullshit.
I think there is also the fear to be as them at one point in time.
For all the reasons barrbaric wrote that is something they want to avoid. I do disagree that libs are insulated from the suffering inflicted by capitalism. However wanting to avoid becoming a "non-person" in their view is quite important, too.
the essence of liberalism is you get what you deserve.
Because liberals believe that 1. Inequality is good and natural, and that 2. People get/earn what they deserve
When you talk about making things better for the poorest of the poor (according to them: the worst people, because of course), you are challenging their core beliefs about how the world works and their sense of justice in the meritocracy they claim to love
The mask off stuff generally isn't coming from libs.
There's REALLY mask off stuff thats from genuine fascists but there's still otherwise fairly normal libs doing more soft mask off stuff or not totally disagreeing with the fascists and thats what bothers me because at least on reddit the unhoused seem to be the issue that brings out that side of them the most.
Agreed, but this is a really important difference.
Libs can get moved either way. Put them in a room with a bunch of fascists and they'll probably go along. But put them in a room with a bunch of people talking about housing first, or guaranteed basic income, or the evils of landlords, and they'll probably go along with that, too. The trick is getting them to reject the bad things and push the good things on their own, that is, to make them leftists.
Mistaking libs for fascists is bad analysis and actively harmful to growing the left.
Yeah I dont disagree with this. Good points.
deleted by creator
As is the case with many other subjects, they'll agree with a surprising amount of leftist points until you label them "socialism" or start referencing AES states. Progressive ones will agree with basically all our reasons about why landlords are bad, and may even agree with "we should just take their rental properties" -- especially if framed in the context of local reactionary landlords and their influence on local politics -- but you'll lose them talking about Mao. Your more mainstream Dems might draw the line at rent control, but will at least talk about it, and will nod along to everything you say about enforcing existing housing laws or expanding renter protections.
You'll of course have some neolib psychos or lib landlords who'll have far more reactionary opinions, too.
They feel personally inconvenienced by their existence.