4 ms·

That is a bold accusation to make given that you have never met any of the workers. Reality is never as simple as you assert. It's almost certain that the peo

by Goladus 17y ago

That is a bold accusation to make given that you have never met any of the workers. Reality is never as simple as you assert. It's almost certain that the people who visit him daily have far more compassion than you would have us believe, and certainly care far more about this man in particular than you do.

lukev 17y ago
I'm sure you're right - I was making my point rather hyperbolically. But I think the point is valid: a lot of work to help "the homeless" is ultimately motivated more by removing eyesores and eliminating guilt-trips than actually helping people. Out of sight, out of mind. And yes, I know it's human nature, but that doesn't make it right.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  I disagree - I volunteer with the homeless here in Seattle and I have not gotten that impression from anyone I've worked with here. The city government, city council, and general people are more interested in removing eye-sores and guilt trips. But by and large the aid workers are genuine - heck, they are the only people who seem to perceive the homeless as people. So the question is, who are these aid workers working for - if they represent the city directly, then yeah, I'd be inclined to call shenanigans. If they represent an apolitical aid organization though, I'd be hesitant to make that accusation. Part of the complexity of the situation is that a lot of the homeless have severe mental illnesses, and many are dangers to themselves because of it. This is why I don't immediately jump to the "enforcer" conclusion - it may very well be that the social workers are trying to get him to a place where his mental illness may be treated. Personally I'm against efforts by cities to simply get the homeless out of sight - I think most people in society sorely need a daily reminder of just how lucky they are, and how much they are not doing to lift up those around them. Let the ugliness and ills of the city shine openly, it's the only way we will ever be compelled to fix them.
  - lukev 17y ago
    You're right, and I've known a lot of volunteers who were, to a person, in it for the right reasons. I guess it was just the tone of the article, how they were focusing so much on Times Square, with nary a mention of homelessness in other parts of the city. One contented homeless guy isn't a bad thing - good job. Check on him every few weeks, and move on to people who really do need help. And who might not be in such a prominent location.
- Goladus 17y ago
  It's also motivated by a desire to reduce crime rates and help local, taxpaying businesses.
wdewind 17y ago
we know that he refuses the help all the time and has for years and that they still keep asking him if he wants it. christian missionaries are completely well intentioned, but its still proselytization as is this... would you like jesus in your life? no? what about now?
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  What's your jab at "christian missionaries" got to do with the article? The group Common Ground that is mentioned in the article have no religious affiliations mentioned on their website (after a quick scan). Vis-a-vis your OT remarks: Man A (to Suicidal man on a ledge): Would you like to come down now? Man B: No Man A: What about now? ...
  - wdewind 17y ago
    no actually the conversation is going like this: A: Don't jump!! Come down! We want to help you! B: No thanks I actually live up here, and wasn't planning on jumping... A: ....Don't jump!! Come down! We want to help you! At one point does it become clear the guy isn't actually going to jump? 10 years? 15? 50? my jab at christian missionaries was a metaphor that i guess just makes sense to me, but basically was trying to illustrate that often those who look like they need help dont, and often to the response to "no thanks i dont need help" is (especially from missionaries) "oh, you just dont get what im offering, here let me explain."
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      OK, so I didn't pick the perfect metaphor. For a Christian, unless you choose to have faith in Jesus and accept His sacrifice they you're going to hell. Unlike your account of someone who just likes acting suicidal on ledges hell is not to be mistaken, it is not bognor regis. Apologies for the off-topic.
- jacobolus 17y ago
  The Christian missionaries I know and the anthropologists and the Maxist labor organizers and the social workers have much more in common with each-other than any of them has in common with with the average middle class office worker, bishop, auto mechanic, startup founder hacker, etc. (That is, for the most part they devote their lives first to helping people, and then secondarily to broader goals.) Not only is the majority of missionary work well intentioned, but missionaries have a complex first-hand understanding of social problems small-scale and large-, and can do an incredible amount of good. (I say this as a steadfast athiest.) Christian missionary work has in the past, and sometimes continues to have, an ugly side. But unless you have some direct experience with what spending a lifetime trying to help people at an individual level is like, your blanket condemnation is neither useful nor appropriate.

by Goladus 17y ago

lukev 17y ago

I'm sure you're right - I was making my point rather hyperbolically. But I think the point is valid: a lot of work to help "the homeless" is ultimately motivated more by removing eyesores and eliminating guilt-trips than actually helping people. Out of sight, out of mind. And yes, I know it's human nature, but that doesn't make it right.

potatolicious 17y ago
I disagree - I volunteer with the homeless here in Seattle and I have not gotten that impression from anyone I've worked with here. The city government, city council, and general people are more interested in removing eye-sores and guilt trips. But by and large the aid workers are genuine - heck, they are the only people who seem to perceive the homeless as people. So the question is, who are these aid workers working for - if they represent the city directly, then yeah, I'd be inclined to call shenanigans. If they represent an apolitical aid organization though, I'd be hesitant to make that accusation. Part of the complexity of the situation is that a lot of the homeless have severe mental illnesses, and many are dangers to themselves because of it. This is why I don't immediately jump to the "enforcer" conclusion - it may very well be that the social workers are trying to get him to a place where his mental illness may be treated. Personally I'm against efforts by cities to simply get the homeless out of sight - I think most people in society sorely need a daily reminder of just how lucky they are, and how much they are not doing to lift up those around them. Let the ugliness and ills of the city shine openly, it's the only way we will ever be compelled to fix them.
- lukev 17y ago
  You're right, and I've known a lot of volunteers who were, to a person, in it for the right reasons. I guess it was just the tone of the article, how they were focusing so much on Times Square, with nary a mention of homelessness in other parts of the city. One contented homeless guy isn't a bad thing - good job. Check on him every few weeks, and move on to people who really do need help. And who might not be in such a prominent location.
Goladus 17y ago
It's also motivated by a desire to reduce crime rates and help local, taxpaying businesses.

wdewind 17y ago

we know that he refuses the help all the time and has for years and that they still keep asking him if he wants it. christian missionaries are completely well intentioned, but its still proselytization as is this... would you like jesus in your life? no? what about now?

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
What's your jab at "christian missionaries" got to do with the article? The group Common Ground that is mentioned in the article have no religious affiliations mentioned on their website (after a quick scan). Vis-a-vis your OT remarks: Man A (to Suicidal man on a ledge): Would you like to come down now? Man B: No Man A: What about now? ...
- wdewind 17y ago
  no actually the conversation is going like this: A: Don't jump!! Come down! We want to help you! B: No thanks I actually live up here, and wasn't planning on jumping... A: ....Don't jump!! Come down! We want to help you! At one point does it become clear the guy isn't actually going to jump? 10 years? 15? 50? my jab at christian missionaries was a metaphor that i guess just makes sense to me, but basically was trying to illustrate that often those who look like they need help dont, and often to the response to "no thanks i dont need help" is (especially from missionaries) "oh, you just dont get what im offering, here let me explain."
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    OK, so I didn't pick the perfect metaphor. For a Christian, unless you choose to have faith in Jesus and accept His sacrifice they you're going to hell. Unlike your account of someone who just likes acting suicidal on ledges hell is not to be mistaken, it is not bognor regis. Apologies for the off-topic.
jacobolus 17y ago
The Christian missionaries I know and the anthropologists and the Maxist labor organizers and the social workers have much more in common with each-other than any of them has in common with with the average middle class office worker, bishop, auto mechanic, startup founder hacker, etc. (That is, for the most part they devote their lives first to helping people, and then secondarily to broader goals.) Not only is the majority of missionary work well intentioned, but missionaries have a complex first-hand understanding of social problems small-scale and large-, and can do an incredible amount of good. (I say this as a steadfast athiest.) Christian missionary work has in the past, and sometimes continues to have, an ugly side. But unless you have some direct experience with what spending a lifetime trying to help people at an individual level is like, your blanket condemnation is neither useful nor appropriate.