Sort of a ragebait headline. The headline makes it sound like a trade of sorts where the shelters are trying to take peoples dogs away, but the article says that the shelters just do not accept pets and therefore people cant get housed there as long as they have a pet. Thats a design error and fucking stupid but its not actively maliscous by the sound of it.
Malicious or not, the end result is the same. From the perspective of the unhoused, the headline is perfectly accurate. They can’t get housing unless they give up their dogs. It’s a pretty sad situation.
This isn’t unique to Australia either. I know that in New York, it’s the same situation. Lots of unhoused to people being forced to make impossible choices.
Sort of a ragebait headline. The headline makes it sound like a trade of sorts where the shelters are trying to take peoples dogs away, but the article says that the shelters just do not accept pets and therefore people cant get housed there as long as they have a pet. Thats a design error and fucking stupid but its not actively maliscous by the sound of it.
Malicious or not, the end result is the same. From the perspective of the unhoused, the headline is perfectly accurate. They can’t get housing unless they give up their dogs. It’s a pretty sad situation.
This isn’t unique to Australia either. I know that in New York, it’s the same situation. Lots of unhoused to people being forced to make impossible choices.
Mmmm, maliscious 🍩
Oh oops, im just gonna leave it like this :)
Perfect! I’m a fan of sacrelicious treats, so a (True)Death-by-Chocolate donut desecrated w/ sin sprinkles is right in line. 🤓🤘🏼🔥🤣
that’s what I assumed from the headlines,
didn’t consider the possibility of dog shelters giving housing in exchange of dogs.
Yeah I agree