3 ms·

FWIW, people who have a problem with street people are largely not concerned with people living in unconventional shelters (such as tents and cardboard boxes).

FWIW, people who have a problem with street people are largely not concerned with people living in unconventional shelters (such as tents and cardboard boxes). They're concerned with what street people do. Drug use, syringes left on the ground, shit and piss everywhere, piles of trash, theft, vandalism, etc.

mwfunk 8y ago
Agreed- a lot of people (on HN at least) are hypersensitive to any suggestion that any homeless people are voluntarily homeless, dangerous to themselves or others, or engage in any activities that everyone living around them would prefer they not engage in. I get it; acknowledging that can be a slippery slope towards demonizing all homeless people, which in turn could lead to people rationalizing not trying to help the situation, or dealing with it in ways that don't help those in need. But it's dishonest, and it's a weird sort of virtue signaling to try to shame anyone who says they don't like wading around in syringes and human waste and clearly mentally ill panhandlers when they visit SF. Mass homelessness is absolutely a problem not just for the homeless themselves, but for everyone in a city. There's nothing wrong with saying that mass homelessness makes a city a worse place for everyone, not just the homeless themselves. Accepting that makes it a lot easier to motivate people to actually do things to improve the situation. Anecdotally, it's an issue where people tend to hold extreme positions with no middle ground- either SF's homeless are primarily noble beings fallen on hard times who need our help, or (the other extreme view) they're primarily panhandlers taking advantage of local sympathies and weather and are fine with sleeping in doorways and pooping in alleys if it means they don't have to have jobs. In reality it's some combination, but I have no idea what the demographics are or if anyone even knows. If there's no common ground with how people define the problem, there's no agreement on the solution. It sucks but if people don't view it as a huge gray area with multiple valid perspectives, it can't ever get fixed in a meaningful way. People will just continue arguing over whether to arrest them all or throw money at them, and the problem will persist indefinitely. Having said that, I really hope the additional funding approved by voters last week turns out to be a step in the right direction that makes a tangible positive difference for everyone in SF, homeless or not. I have no problem with throwing money at the situation if it actually helps.
Nomentatus 8y ago
Now try your sentence with "what black people do" or any other group, and see how it make you feel. You forgot to put in "a minority of." The street people you see (many of which aren't homeless) are a minority compared to the homeless (some of whom pick up litter) who stay mostly out of sight, sleep out of sight, aren't practiced beggars.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  > Now try your sentence with "what black people do" or any other group, and see how it make you feel. So if I have a problem with people who drive drunk, my concerns are invalid because, if I replaced the category “drunk drivers” with “black people” in statements I make about the societal harms caused by drunk drivers, it would come across as racist? Also, nice try on the “not all homeless” trick, but I’m already hip to that particular rhetorical maneuver. As such, I didn’t use that term. I used “street people” because I am specifically referring to all of the people who are living in public spaces in broad daylight.
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    Any classification that's actually defined by behavior, such as "drive drunk" as opposed to "streetpeople" is perfectly fine by me, as I think would be obvious. Both streetpeople and homeless are highly heterogeneous groups, so I don't think this affects my point. Which is that your one-to-one mapping is literally stereotyping. Just back off a little, so that you're only complaining about those you're really angry at, please. That's all I'm asking. If you want to say "a majority of" and have proper sources for that, I won't object to such a statement and I would genuinely be interested in the sources.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      Do you have a preferred term for the people I am trying to refer to? Specifically, the people who live in public spaces and visit mayhem upon the surrounding community? I am asking honestly. Such a term would be very useful in furthering the discussion around the “homeless”. That was my intention in using the term “street people”. Also, “street people” is a class that is defined by behavior. They are people who live in public spaces.

mwfunk 8y ago

Agreed- a lot of people (on HN at least) are hypersensitive to any suggestion that any homeless people are voluntarily homeless, dangerous to themselves or others, or engage in any activities that everyone living around them would prefer they not engage in. I get it; acknowledging that can be a slippery slope towards demonizing all homeless people, which in turn could lead to people rationalizing not trying to help the situation, or dealing with it in ways that don't help those in need. But it's dishonest, and it's a weird sort of virtue signaling to try to shame anyone who says they don't like wading around in syringes and human waste and clearly mentally ill panhandlers when they visit SF. Mass homelessness is absolutely a problem not just for the homeless themselves, but for everyone in a city. There's nothing wrong with saying that mass homelessness makes a city a worse place for everyone, not just the homeless themselves. Accepting that makes it a lot easier to motivate people to actually do things to improve the situation. Anecdotally, it's an issue where people tend to hold extreme positions with no middle ground- either SF's homeless are primarily noble beings fallen on hard times who need our help, or (the other extreme view) they're primarily panhandlers taking advantage of local sympathies and weather and are fine with sleeping in doorways and pooping in alleys if it means they don't have to have jobs. In reality it's some combination, but I have no idea what the demographics are or if anyone even knows. If there's no common ground with how people define the problem, there's no agreement on the solution. It sucks but if people don't view it as a huge gray area with multiple valid perspectives, it can't ever get fixed in a meaningful way. People will just continue arguing over whether to arrest them all or throw money at them, and the problem will persist indefinitely. Having said that, I really hope the additional funding approved by voters last week turns out to be a step in the right direction that makes a tangible positive difference for everyone in SF, homeless or not. I have no problem with throwing money at the situation if it actually helps.

Nomentatus 8y ago

Now try your sentence with "what black people do" or any other group, and see how it make you feel. You forgot to put in "a minority of." The street people you see (many of which aren't homeless) are a minority compared to the homeless (some of whom pick up litter) who stay mostly out of sight, sleep out of sight, aren't practiced beggars.

toasterlovin 8y ago
> Now try your sentence with "what black people do" or any other group, and see how it make you feel. So if I have a problem with people who drive drunk, my concerns are invalid because, if I replaced the category “drunk drivers” with “black people” in statements I make about the societal harms caused by drunk drivers, it would come across as racist? Also, nice try on the “not all homeless” trick, but I’m already hip to that particular rhetorical maneuver. As such, I didn’t use that term. I used “street people” because I am specifically referring to all of the people who are living in public spaces in broad daylight.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  Any classification that's actually defined by behavior, such as "drive drunk" as opposed to "streetpeople" is perfectly fine by me, as I think would be obvious. Both streetpeople and homeless are highly heterogeneous groups, so I don't think this affects my point. Which is that your one-to-one mapping is literally stereotyping. Just back off a little, so that you're only complaining about those you're really angry at, please. That's all I'm asking. If you want to say "a majority of" and have proper sources for that, I won't object to such a statement and I would genuinely be interested in the sources.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Do you have a preferred term for the people I am trying to refer to? Specifically, the people who live in public spaces and visit mayhem upon the surrounding community? I am asking honestly. Such a term would be very useful in furthering the discussion around the “homeless”. That was my intention in using the term “street people”. Also, “street people” is a class that is defined by behavior. They are people who live in public spaces.