this post was submitted on 10 May 2025
1078 points (97.0% liked)

Lemmy Be Wholesome

8672 readers
538 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Be Wholesome. This is the polar opposite of LemmeShitpost. Here you can post wholesome memes, palate cleanser and good vibes.

The home to heal your soul. No bleak-posting!

Rules:


1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. No NSFW Content


-Content shouldn't be NSFW

-Refrain from posting triggering content, if the content might be triggering try putting it behind NSFW tags.


7. Content should be Wholesome, we accept cute cats, kittens, puppies, dogs and anything, everything that restores your faith in humanity!


Content that isn't wholesome will be removed.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Mildly Infuriating

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Jokes

7.Credible Defense

...

Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 34 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And why were they homeless?

Why were they homeless???

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 32 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm of two minds.

  • shitty bungalows are what is killing infrastructure costs and perpetuating urban sprawl. We have a generous home in a hyper-dense housing area and - thanks to triple paned windows and concrete - no claustrophobia.

  • tiny homes for people returning from homelessness may be a good idea. The unfair concerns are mitigated by very repairable units separated from neighbours.

We need to keep these as transitional housing, though, and a feeder into a "starter" unit in proper dense mixed-use: every block (hectare) taken for tiny homes is 3 million cubic meters of space taken from a land budget we're already overdrawn on.

[–] blackfire@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think thats always the hope that they are first steps of stability to move up. None of the projects like this I've seen have been intended to be life time residence.

[–] turtlesareneat@discuss.online 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There are tiny-home dwellers but they're often highly educated professionals who decide to live Buddhist for a while. Some of them wind up enjoying it.

The better analogy for homeless folks would be living in cars, aka the invisible homeless - is this better than that? Fuck yes. Even if it WAS permanent it's better than that.

[–] blackfire@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Totally agree, any stability in a seemingly hopeless situation is a great thing.

[–] Godric@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Someone took 99 families off the streets? Wow fuck that asshole, how dare she have enough money to do that. How dare she not give up her home and make it 100 families off the streets, not good enough!

-Half this website, angry 99 families now have a place to live who didn't before this event

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago

The anger isn't (necessarily) for the rich person who housed people. It's for the system who left people homeless in the first place, the system that will put those people back on the streets if they don't pay rent/property taxes/whatever other fee people have to pay to exist, the system where the solution is literally just "have rich people pay their share and almost everything will be fixed" but for some reason the people in charge can't (or don't want to) figure that out.

You conflating anger with the system with anger for people getting houses is disingenuous.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 days ago

I like this because it is both a good story about an individual helping their community and it is proof individual action alone is not enough to rely on to solve social problems.

[–] StonerCowboy@lemm.ee 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Now imagine if billionaires did it with their infinite wealth......sad. humanity and capitalism is just cancer.

[–] MyNameIsIgglePiggle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If we can convince them their dick size is measured by how much charity / benefit they do with their wealth we will solve many of the world's problems overnight

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

that sounds an awful lot like communism to me. We can't have that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Alk@sh.itjust.works 37 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (6 children)

Source? Did it actually work? Very cool if so.

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago

Here's one article about it.

https://macleans.ca/society/tiny-homes-fredericton/

I don't remember where I saw this the first time, but it did mention that this had become a thing in a few American cities too (this story was from Fredericton, Canada)

[–] Tahl_eN@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago (1 children)

My city does something like this as part of our homeless program and we're at "net-zero" homeless. It doesn't work on it's own, but the tiny homes give people a stable place to keep their stuff safe and the elements off their bodies, it gives them an address they can use for things like mail and applications, and it gives social workers a place to find them reliably. It's the start of a long process to help them back to their feet.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A lot of people talk about taxing folks like this and then using the money to supply the housing.

The thing is, given the money, few people could pull this off well. The site isn't just being plopped down; from the sound of the article in the comments it's being actively developed as a community with other safeguards and support, by someone who sunk a lot of time into finding out what would work to help people rather than just appear to help.

A scheme like this is hard to replicate because, in addition to money, it needs a core team with a clear vision and the time to really make it a focus of their lives. It also needs a community that will embrace it - for example it would likely work in the town I grew up in, but the town I work in (and am sadly forced to live in) now would likely drive such a project to failure.

It's a good idea that worked against the odds, and should be celebrated for that alone.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A scheme like this is hard to replicate because, in addition to money, it needs a core team with a clear vision and the time to really make it a focus of their lives.

Sounds like an opportunity for the local government, and a way to create local jobs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aaron@infosec.pub 5 points 2 days ago

Where are they built in relation to necessary services, and what other services are available?

Is there on site support for drugs and mental health issues?

Is anybody's stuff going to be safe there? Or are they dumped out of sight and mind?

You have to 'invest' in preventing the causes of homelessness in the first place, which has proved impossible under capitalism. I doubt corrupt dictatorships of the proletariat such as the Soviet Union did any better.

[–] Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 2 days ago

Not everyone agrees with this thought but I'm also for allowing unused city parcels to be used for homeless tents and such. My city does everything it can to hide homelessness without addressing any of the underlying issues

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 13 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Spacing looks a bit odd. Would a communal park and then less space between each be better? Not really enough space around each one to be much use beyond a few plant pots anyway.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] stebo02@sopuli.xyz 14 points 3 days ago (5 children)

99 is not nearly enough but it's a start at least

[–] ramenshaman@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I would say that this particular millionaire did his part to help out. If every millionaire/billionaire spent the same percentage of their wealth on similar projects we would be in pretty good shape as far as homelessness goes.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] kruddman@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Do they pay him rent now?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›