5 ms·

I have no idea how anyone could look at homeless people and think, “what they really need is a bit more suffering to finally get their act together”. As an act

I have no idea how anyone could look at homeless people and think, “what they really need is a bit more suffering to finally get their act together”. As an actual attempt to convince you of the value of even poor people’s lives, I invite you to consider if homelessness could possibly seen as a disease more than any personal lack of virtue. The view has somewhat changed wrt drug dependency (thanks white people on opioids), and there is ample evidence that schizophrenia is widespread among the homeless. There have also been some recent studies that a rather large fraction of homeless people had experienced head trauma before becoming homeless. The rate was something like 30% (vs. 3% among the general population). Finally, the “tough love, minus actual love” approach is obviously the status quo. To insist on a failed strategy just to satisfy some moral standard/sadistic instinct seems indefensible. The worst part is that people are obviously willing to incur far larger costs in the criminal justice system, through crimes themselves, and the inconvenience to actually see these people they thoroughly despise/fear: they are willing to pay extra, as long as they are assured the money does not possibly help anyone. Consider any other scenario where you’re trying to get people to behave in certain ways: parenting, dog training, employment reviews, etc: if you’re beating the crap out of your child twice weekly for being difficult, would you expect their behavior to improve?

yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
> I have no idea how anyone could look at homeless people and think, “what they really need is a bit more suffering to finally get their act together”. As a person who used to eat with the homeless every day in London, I absolutely do. There is so much opportunity for lazy and stupid people, especially in the West. A large proportion of the people lining up with me for food from the Hare Krishna people (and a local Christian church too) in Holborn were rude, entitled, and lazy. If kids were brought up with a little more discipline, they might become adults who appreciate hard graft. If this were true in London and that discipline were implemented, half the people in that food line wouldn't be there. Maybe that's why I rarely see homeless people in Poland. They work.
- matt4077 8y ago
  Wow, this is... quite something. It just doesn’t make that much sense: if homeless life in London is so excellent, have you ever considered taking it up? And because, of course, you didn’t: if you really believe it’s just their lazy choice, what’s the difference between you (and me) and them that we would rather work a few hours five days a week instead of spending winter nights outside in the London rain? As to why you see fewer homeless in Poland: - draconian laws banning these people from the streets (a practice most western countries consider a violation of some principles like just basic decency) - London happens to be a magnet for homeless people. Because the only thing worse than being homeless in the city is being homeless in rural areas - London and UK rents are something like 5x those in Poland - Poland’s homeless population tends to do that “digital nomad” thing, only without the MacBook. I. e. they prefer southern France, Berlin, or, yes, London - Poland tends to still have families living together, making it more likely that the cousin with schizophrenia is cared for within the family, instead of becoming homeless
  - yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
    Some of your points seem to be based on the assumption that I'm tarring everyone with the same brush. That shouldn't be the case; I don't think all the homeless in London are just lazy. > if homeless life in London is so excellent, have you ever considered taking it up? It's not excellent. That's why I'm not doing it. The fact that it is not excellent was a motivator for me to work harder and make better life choices. This contrasts with the woman mentioned in the article who is happy with her free home because she can continue being an alcoholic. > what’s the difference between you (and me) and them that we would rather work a few hours five days a week instead of spending winter nights outside in the London rain? Attitude, mostly. I can't speak on your behalf, but I would have taken any job at the time. In fact, I did. I've worked several shitty jobs. Some people (including my fellow Hare Krishna free-street-food patrons) believe they're above certain kinds of work. > London and UK rents are something like 5x those in Poland This is an argument for more affordable housing, not for free houses. I certainly agree with a greater housing supply. In general, I am in support of improving people's opportunities of self-determination, rather than just giving people free stuff. > Poland tends to still have families living together, making it more likely that the cousin with schizophrenia is cared for within the family, instead of becoming homeless That is true, but I'm not such how it makes a case for either argument. If it's just to downplay my point about the Polish generally having a different attitude to work, then yes, I think that's a reasonable point, though our discussion is completely unscientific and there are no numbers to suggest how much of each is true.
rdm_blackhole 8y ago
You may want to re-read my comment because I don't think you understood what I wrote. This is not though love. What I am talking about is incentives. In exchange for free housing, you should at least try to get clean/ do some training/ do something. To expect that society should provide free meals/housing without even the possibility of asking addicts to get clean does not sound fair to me. Priority should be given to people who are at least trying to turn around their lives. So yes I stand by what I said, I think a single mum with kids, a scared teenager/ somebody down on their luck should get free housing. Addicts should have access to care, to treatment, to food to everything that a human being deserves but they should at least try to get clean. if they won't don't want to then priority should be given to somebody else.
- ukoki 8y ago
  Drug addiction already comes with so many negative side affects that you don't need the added incentive of potentially losing access to housing. If I offered you lifetime room and board in return for a crippling heroin addiction would you take that offer? If not, why not? Off the top of my head, there are already some fantastic incentives to not be a drug addict such as: - Massive social stigma and alienation from everyone in your life - Irreversible mental health issues - Serious physical health issues (often death) - The impossibility of doing anything productive or fulfilling

yakshaving_jgt 8y ago

> I have no idea how anyone could look at homeless people and think, “what they really need is a bit more suffering to finally get their act together”. As a person who used to eat with the homeless every day in London, I absolutely do. There is so much opportunity for lazy and stupid people, especially in the West. A large proportion of the people lining up with me for food from the Hare Krishna people (and a local Christian church too) in Holborn were rude, entitled, and lazy. If kids were brought up with a little more discipline, they might become adults who appreciate hard graft. If this were true in London and that discipline were implemented, half the people in that food line wouldn't be there. Maybe that's why I rarely see homeless people in Poland. They work.

matt4077 8y ago
Wow, this is... quite something. It just doesn’t make that much sense: if homeless life in London is so excellent, have you ever considered taking it up? And because, of course, you didn’t: if you really believe it’s just their lazy choice, what’s the difference between you (and me) and them that we would rather work a few hours five days a week instead of spending winter nights outside in the London rain? As to why you see fewer homeless in Poland: - draconian laws banning these people from the streets (a practice most western countries consider a violation of some principles like just basic decency) - London happens to be a magnet for homeless people. Because the only thing worse than being homeless in the city is being homeless in rural areas - London and UK rents are something like 5x those in Poland - Poland’s homeless population tends to do that “digital nomad” thing, only without the MacBook. I. e. they prefer southern France, Berlin, or, yes, London - Poland tends to still have families living together, making it more likely that the cousin with schizophrenia is cared for within the family, instead of becoming homeless
- yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
  Some of your points seem to be based on the assumption that I'm tarring everyone with the same brush. That shouldn't be the case; I don't think all the homeless in London are just lazy. > if homeless life in London is so excellent, have you ever considered taking it up? It's not excellent. That's why I'm not doing it. The fact that it is not excellent was a motivator for me to work harder and make better life choices. This contrasts with the woman mentioned in the article who is happy with her free home because she can continue being an alcoholic. > what’s the difference between you (and me) and them that we would rather work a few hours five days a week instead of spending winter nights outside in the London rain? Attitude, mostly. I can't speak on your behalf, but I would have taken any job at the time. In fact, I did. I've worked several shitty jobs. Some people (including my fellow Hare Krishna free-street-food patrons) believe they're above certain kinds of work. > London and UK rents are something like 5x those in Poland This is an argument for more affordable housing, not for free houses. I certainly agree with a greater housing supply. In general, I am in support of improving people's opportunities of self-determination, rather than just giving people free stuff. > Poland tends to still have families living together, making it more likely that the cousin with schizophrenia is cared for within the family, instead of becoming homeless That is true, but I'm not such how it makes a case for either argument. If it's just to downplay my point about the Polish generally having a different attitude to work, then yes, I think that's a reasonable point, though our discussion is completely unscientific and there are no numbers to suggest how much of each is true.

rdm_blackhole 8y ago

You may want to re-read my comment because I don't think you understood what I wrote. This is not though love. What I am talking about is incentives. In exchange for free housing, you should at least try to get clean/ do some training/ do something. To expect that society should provide free meals/housing without even the possibility of asking addicts to get clean does not sound fair to me. Priority should be given to people who are at least trying to turn around their lives. So yes I stand by what I said, I think a single mum with kids, a scared teenager/ somebody down on their luck should get free housing. Addicts should have access to care, to treatment, to food to everything that a human being deserves but they should at least try to get clean. if they won't don't want to then priority should be given to somebody else.

ukoki 8y ago
Drug addiction already comes with so many negative side affects that you don't need the added incentive of potentially losing access to housing. If I offered you lifetime room and board in return for a crippling heroin addiction would you take that offer? If not, why not? Off the top of my head, there are already some fantastic incentives to not be a drug addict such as: - Massive social stigma and alienation from everyone in your life - Irreversible mental health issues - Serious physical health issues (often death) - The impossibility of doing anything productive or fulfilling