If that’s true, isn’t that considered counterfeit and thus federal prison?
Probably fraud? It's movie prop money, which is distinguishable as not real. I would be surprised if a homeless person wouldn't realize themselves.
Which fortunately, has zero bearing on whether or not he just admitted to felony counterfeiting.
It kind of does. If he is buying these and giving them out he's an ass but no one is going to her arrested for giving them away. The only problem would be if someone tried to spend it and got belligerent when the store wouldn't take it.
You could photocopy that as many times as you want and it is still Iitterally play money.
Depends on how much money he has.
What a giant condescending piece of human trash.
trump, or this guy?
Yeah
He is literally admitting to committing a felony here. Saying "Just Kidding!" doesn't let you off the hook. I hope the Secret Service looks into this clown.
Federal law pretty much says [IANAL] that passing fake cash off with intent to defraud the recipient into believing it is real; is in fact a felony.
Outrage, but no surprise at all. Trump simply attracts wretched human beings.
I was tipped a For Motion Picture Use only 5 dollar bill at my valet job and called the person out for it being not a real 5. They are very distinguishable, even on first glance the color and texture is just wrong. The lady who gave it to me got all flustered and claimed she didnt even know it wasnt real. This kind if thing happens more often than you think
Unhoused? Is it suddenly wrong think to say homeless, did I miss another one?
Unhoused is a more politically correct term. But the literature typically distinguishes between unsheltered and homeless. I honestly don’t like the term unhoused because it blurs the line between those two categories. I spent like one semester doing a research project that involved homelessness.
I'm sorry, I'm not very much into political correctness, it very much has a better than thou vibe to it for me from people that typically don't do anything to actually solve the issue.
When you're homeless I don't think you care much if someone calls you unhoused and now somehow things are better? No, you're still in the shit.
I think people should spend more time on actual sustainable solutions and less time on trying to change how we talk.
HOMELESS, lets not save others feelings on the back of those that are 'unhoused', it seems like those people already have enough going on. Also fuck this guy.
Referring to people as unhoused is actually a way to help people see them as people and not an "other". Some see "homeless" as a bit dehumanizing.
I'm with the other person, virtue signaling in words is not helping the issues.
I do not believe the homeless community came out and said "I hate the word homeless, call me unhoused." There issue is AFAIK with houses, not name calling.
Saying "unhoused people" instead of "homeless people" doesn't make them sound any more like a person; it's just a different qualifier.
EDIT: Even worse in this case, there are a number of people that are trying to use "unhoused" to distance "homeless" from the traditional image of an unemployed person that may or may not be asking for money on a street corner. They want to capture people that may have employment but live in a car or something.
Like... This is pretty clearly about the former (someone struggling to make ends meet and begging for moeny), not someone struggling to buy a house.
The term homeless people puts the emphasis on homeless, and allows NIMBYs to forget that these people are, in fact, people.
The term "people experiencing homelessness," frames the situation much better. They are people who didn't make a choice to be homeless, they are just experiencing homelessness because the system has said that is ok for anyone to experience the warzone that is homelessness.
The term homeless people puts the emphasis on homeless, and allows NIMBYs to forget that these people are, in fact, people.
I really think this needs to be challenged. Sociologists need to prove this actually has some positive effect; I don't believe it does. Particularly in this case, homelessness was not an offensive term.
We just get ourselves into pointless debates about the politeness of a particular term, people looked down upon for "using an outdated term to talk about the issue" (and patting themselves on the back for "doing something for the issue"), while real people endure real suffering.
I don't believe anyone is going to suddenly see a person as a person because someone told them "we're relabeling that." If they're the dude in this article, they're going to roll their eyes and keep handing out fake money until people actually hold them accountable for their bad behavior.
This is not much different than the former University of Akron president trying to rebrand the university as "Ohio Polytechnic Institute" (to community outrage I might add).
The left wing of the US needs to stop relabeling shit and actually do something about it. Even at the local level, we have way too many mayors trying to solve homelessness by spending extra money to make urban design hostile to homeless people. That's not Republicans, that's not the labeling, that's a failure of the establishment to actually address affordable housing concerns and gaps in the social safety net.
I totally agree, making sure they're seen as people is great, and changing the wording to reflect that is a positive change.
I just don't think "unhoused people" is the right one. To me it implies that it's temporary and there's some sort of action being done to rectify it. I have no idea why I have that preconception though. Maybe it's just me?
I guess something like "homeless people" is a middle ground, but it still has the stigma
Jesus. This is just too much. Words have meaning you know. I live in an apartment so I guess I'm unhoused. Homeless though does imply that I have none of these things since i have no home.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.