4 ms·

> It's happened many a time before. And who can blame them? If you started putting a bunch of high-risk no-income people in section 8 housing in a formerly nic

• thinkmoore 10y ago
  "High risk, no-income." Really? Section 8 supports the working poor. You need to check your prejudices against reality.
  • wyager 10y ago
    I guess most of them work from home then? I see you go to Harvard, so you have the privilege of being insulated from the realities of publicly supported destitute poverty. I suspect you've never seen massive fights in a section 8 complex, or people setting trash cans on fire, or people smashing windows, or stealing appliances from their own buildings.
    • azinman2 10y ago
      Down the street from Harvard is section 8 housing that I'm sure the GP isn't even aware of, because it looks just like any other building near by. No trash can fires or the like. I used to be a big brother to a kid in that building, so I've been inside many times. None of those things you described were happening.
• duaneb 10y ago
  If only the working poor were "high-risk no-income". That would indicate some free time to get into trouble! That would mean they could simply find a job instead of stretching their current ones. This is a classist dogwhistle labeling the poor as lazy, violent people.
  • wyager 10y ago
    I have lived near section 8 housing in Texas. They are not, generally speaking, working. It's also not the kind of place you want to be near at night. "The poor" is not the same as "people who live in public housing". There are a lot of dirt-poor rural areas that are very safe (and generally more employable).
  • yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Why are you trying to shame people for making claims that are fundamentally correct? The poor are lazy: http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication... Table 3 on page 21. They are also disproportionately violent: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf I have no data on section 8 recipients in particular; do you?
    • duaneb 10y ago
      Neither source remotely supports your claims. Laziness is not qualitative. I think people who work desk jobs are lazy; I imagine you believe people on disability to be lazy. The thing you linked doesn't even contain the word. You have to use your words if you want to communicate. The rich would be violent, too, if they were threatened by losing their wealth. Being able to reject violence wholesale is privileged. Let's just agree never to interact; I think we'll both be happier.
      • wyager 10y ago
        > Being able to reject violence wholesale is privileged. Ah, so not beating your wife, as discussed in the paper, is privileged? It's OK for poor people to do it?
        • duaneb 10y ago
          > Ah, so not beating your wife, as discussed in the paper, is privileged? Avoiding conviction certainly is.
      • yummyfajitas 10y ago
        You used the word "lazy" with regard to people who were "no-income". I showed that, in fact, most of the poor are "no-income". Lets consider what your comment might mean under that interpretation: If only the working poor were "high-risk desk job workers". That would indicate some free time to get into trouble! That would mean they could simply find a job instead of stretching their current ones. That wouldn't really make much sense. Similarly, I showed the poor are violent. That's what your comment was referring to: ...labeling the poor as desk job working, violent people. I'm glad we could come to agreement that the poor are predominantly high-risk no-income people who are also disproportionately violent.