4 ms·
I take your point, and it's a good one. My counter would be that I would like to encourage the less-narcissistic to be of a little help and make contact, in par
by Nomentatus 8y ago
I take your point, and it's a good one. My counter would be that I would like to encourage the less-narcissistic to be of a little help and make contact, in part because, just as you say, right now those who aren't homeless but are willing to interact with them are not always the best people - they often have selfish or trivial agendas. We need a few more making real contact who don't. You know, actual mature human beings.
So I wouldn't want to think that I've encouraged "poverty tourism" (which has a long history, right back to Victorian slum tours, and probably further back than that.) I'm absolutely not trying to indulge my curiosity when talking to a homeless person; that seems exploitative at best. If a question would be intrusive and unnecessary if you posed it to a billionaire, it's probably not polite question for a homeless person, either. You've better expressed what I meant when I said I always made sure I had time to talk: sometimes homeless people are new to town, or just have something on their mind, and I'm happy to brainstorm (or help fix a bike one time.) But that's up to them of course.
- DoreenMichele 8y agoI guess I would say your first three paragraphs (of the comment in question) were fine, but your closing sentence is of questionable value and veers into territory that concerns me. /unasked for feedback
- Nomentatus 8y agoI've no idea how to interpret your remark. It's always up to anyone to freely decide to engage in conversation or to refuse a chance to chat. To accept a hand fixing a bike or to decide instead that it's more likely that the job will get done properly if they do the whole thing themselves. Etc.