4 ms·

Who is dying in the street in substantial numbers?

by Domenic_S 9y ago

bitwize 9y ago
Go to San Francisco. You'll meet them.
- Notorious_BLT 9y ago
  You mean the progressive city that still refuses to build housing?
ItsMe000001 9y ago
Poor people die earlier. More importantly though their quality of life sucks, especially in a country with tens of millions without health insurance. They may have rotten teeth and loads of stress, but hey, they are not dead yet so what's the problem? Sorry that it's all The Guardian but they had a series that I happened to remember, and I think that publication has a good enough reputation: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extreme-poverty-un-special-rapporteur https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extr... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/21/sequester-cuts-make-america-third-world-country https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/21/seques... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/01/un-extreme-poverty-america-special-rapporteur https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/01/un-extreme-pov... Of course, if we find the slightest mistake or hyperbole (if there even is any) in an article or comment about the plight of the poor we can discuss THAT instead and dismiss the entire thought. Another form of bike-shedding, instead of using good faith for the discussion use every tiny opening of the "opponent" to sidetrack the discussion and to dismiss the issue. So, where are the people of the masses of dying in the streets? None? Even in San Francisco they look shabby but very much still alive? Well, case closed I guess.
- Domenic_S 9y ago
  You're moving the goalposts. The person I replied to implied that people are literally dying in the gutters, so of course future humans will look at us with genuine confusion -- who steps over a dying person in the street? How does that make sense? It trivializes the problem and handwaves away the millions of people who help the poor/homeless, and the millions of dollars we spend on that. If future historians look at any part of this with confusion, it'll be the part where we ignore mental health and think dumping cash/housing/whatever on a person will solve everything.

Who is dying in the street in substantial numbers?

bitwize 9y ago

Go to San Francisco. You'll meet them.

Notorious_BLT 9y ago
You mean the progressive city that still refuses to build housing?

ItsMe000001 9y ago

Poor people die earlier. More importantly though their quality of life sucks, especially in a country with tens of millions without health insurance. They may have rotten teeth and loads of stress, but hey, they are not dead yet so what's the problem? Sorry that it's all The Guardian but they had a series that I happened to remember, and I think that publication has a good enough reputation: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extreme-poverty-un-special-rapporteur https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extr... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/21/sequester-cuts-make-america-third-world-country https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/21/seques... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/01/un-extreme-poverty-america-special-rapporteur https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/01/un-extreme-pov... Of course, if we find the slightest mistake or hyperbole (if there even is any) in an article or comment about the plight of the poor we can discuss THAT instead and dismiss the entire thought. Another form of bike-shedding, instead of using good faith for the discussion use every tiny opening of the "opponent" to sidetrack the discussion and to dismiss the issue. So, where are the people of the masses of dying in the streets? None? Even in San Francisco they look shabby but very much still alive? Well, case closed I guess.

Domenic_S 9y ago
You're moving the goalposts. The person I replied to implied that people are literally dying in the gutters, so of course future humans will look at us with genuine confusion -- who steps over a dying person in the street? How does that make sense? It trivializes the problem and handwaves away the millions of people who help the poor/homeless, and the millions of dollars we spend on that. If future historians look at any part of this with confusion, it'll be the part where we ignore mental health and think dumping cash/housing/whatever on a person will solve everything.