4 ms·
> It's harder to sleep on the streets if there is nowhere to go. I'm puzzled by what kind of psyche underlies a statement like this. I'm sorry to frame it in t
by nkoren 9y ago
> It's harder to sleep on the streets if there is nowhere to go.
I'm puzzled by what kind of psyche underlies a statement like this. I'm sorry to frame it in these terms, but honestly it seems... evil to me. Do you not understand that for many people, sleeping on the street is last remaining alternative to death? Take away the ability to sleep on the street, and you are killing people. If that is your intention, there are faster and more humane ways to do it.
Or do you believe that that were it not for the myriad comforts of the streets, the homeless would simply go back to paying off their mortgages or at least crashing on friends' sofas? Because if that's what you believe, you're simply wrong. Homelessness is a last resort. (And no, the government services which one ought to be able to avail oneself of are no longer always available. Particularly if you are a working-age male, it is often virtually impossible to prove to a social worker that you are not "voluntarily homeless", which then disqualifies you from receiving help.)
I'd like to believe that nobody participating in this discussion is that malicious or that ignorant. If you can show me a third way, I'd genuinely appreciate it.
- gilleain 9y agoI didn't mean what you assumed. It was a simple neutral comment.
- nkoren 9y agoHuh. I grew up very poor -- there were months when the bins behind supermarkets were a primary source of food -- and I've seen rough-sleepers die from exposure. It's hard to reconcile that one could make a "simple neutral comment" about something that, for me, is a very real life-or-death issue. But I accept that was your intention.
- gilleain 9y agoVery generous of you to accept my intentions. Perhaps next time you could not build a tower of assumptions on top of a single sentence that ends with concluding the other person is evil? That sounds like a horrible way to grow up, and yes people on the streets do die from exposure. Presumably they also get infections that can kill them, get beaten to death, get in to fights over who stole whose lighter, etc. In the London that I live in, the homeless are there for all sorts of reasons - poverty, mental illness, addiction, running away from a bad situation, and so on - and not all of these people will die if they are not on the streets. They might be in all sorts of worse (to them) situations - low paid menial job, mental institute, rehab, back home with abusive parents. Most of the time, they have little choice. Or the alternative choice is worse. Forcing them off the street would not just be morally wrong, it would be largely ineffective. Unless you privatise the whole world. The main issue that I see with private spaces is that it shifts the responsibility of low-level policing of the space from the public to security guards. Obviously the first people to come up against this will be the homeless, as they are most likely to be breaking whatever hidden rules these spaces have. Anyway, I don't have the time to discuss this. Good luck with the infrastructure software, it looks well made.
- nkoren 9y agoThank you. Yes, apologies for building too many assumptions; I guess this is a bit of a hot-trigger issue for me. I've seen people genuinely believe that if one makes life sufficiently difficult for the homeless, they'll just go away. In London this has lead to appalling incidents like [1]. I thought that was where you were coming; I see now that it wasn't. Sorry again! In any case, I haven't got time to discuss this either -- gotta get back to work! 1: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-seize-possessions-of-rough-sleepers-in-crackdown-on-homelessness-8631665.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-seize-poss...