The imperfect solutions we need: inexpensive and widely available pay toilets. The imperfect solution we have: people peeing in elevators. - ThreadSky

maxdubler.com • 52 days ago

The imperfect solutions we need: inexpensive and widely available pay toilets.

The imperfect solution we have: people peeing in elevators.

Comments

balrogbongcloud.silmarillionaire.moe•52 days ago

It doesn't seem like @csilverandgold.bsky.social disagrees? I'm sure the homeless people don't enjoy pissing in an elevator more than a toilet either. The reasoning seems straightfwd to me - we don't have homes or pay toilets for homeless to piss in *now*, so where are they gonna go? cupped hands?

balrogbongcloud.silmarillionaire.moe•52 days ago

oh nm you seem to have resolved this discussion

csilverandgold.bsky.social•52 days ago

Right, so until the inexpensive and widely available pay toilets happen, we kinda gotta take the L on people peeing in elevators. Sucks, isn’t pleasant, isn’t what anyone (including the homeless person) wants, and you can kick the person out of the space where that elevator exist, maybe long term

csilverandgold.bsky.social•52 days ago

But you shouldn’t feel like that was a morally correct choice just bc it is expedient.

acreed.bsky.social•52 days ago

Quick question: is the elevator for the one person to piss in or the 100 people who can no longer take it because that person is pissing/pissed in it?

csilverandgold.bsky.social•52 days ago

What you’re saying is the elevator has an intended or proper purpose and using it outside its proper purpose is wrong but like by definition peeing in an elevator is using it outside of its proper purpose lmao.

csilverandgold.bsky.social•52 days ago

Sometimes, out of necessity, people use things for ends other than their intended or proper end. When that happens, the moral evaluation of the act has very little to do with the improper use of the thing and more to do with the questions that attach to the morality of any other act…

acreed.bsky.social•52 days ago

What? Just…no. This is not some metaphysical philosophical conjecture, it’s a question of does one person have the right to deprive the public of use of public space or services? And the answer is no.

bigworker.bsky.social•52 days ago

Or just mandate that the places already required to have toilets open to their customers open those toilets to the public - that was the missing piece of the legislation banning places from charging for their toilets.

csilverandgold.bsky.social•52 days ago

Yeah the root problem imo is about trying to isolate the consequences of homelessness and keep it away from rich people. The richer you are, the more capitalism you’re doing, the more our society feels obligated to keep homeless people away from you.

maxdubler.com•52 days ago

Relying on private businesses to provide a public good like bathrooms strikes me as profoundly neoliberal and backwards.

scott-a-b.bsky.social•52 days ago

my (probably utopian and definitely neoliberal) suggestion would be that cities should mandate that public parking facilities be required to also provide free public restroom facilities. it would put a strain on the cheap garbage surface lots and also provide a public necessity. Two birds, one stone

bigworker.bsky.social•52 days ago

Hmm maybe neoliberal relative to free public provision of toilets, but not nearly as much so as legalizing pay toilets and waiting for the market to solve the problem. It's just practical to use the existing huge glut of available bathrooms to solve the lack of bathroom access problem.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply