3 ms·

I think you're missing the point she's trying to make. She's saying that these types of bans have negative unintended consequences for the poorest people. These

I think you're missing the point she's trying to make. She's saying that these types of bans have negative unintended consequences for the poorest people. These consequences get brushed aside "because we can just do X to really help them", but X is never actually done to the degree that it offsets the problem. Her mention of HN is that, this would be one of those places of high ideals where you would expect X to be done, but it isn't. So if it's not even done in a place like HN, then what's the chance that it will be done by the general public? And so X gets brushed aside and the negative unintended consequences pile up.

jacobolus 8y ago
So your argument is something like “if any system or policy incidentally helps the poorest people while also doing lots of unintended damage, then it is immoral to stop doing it, because replacing the incidental aid to the poor now cut off is politically intractable”? This is precisely the same logic that says we need to continue to use coal power plants because otherwise the coal miners will lose their jobs, and it’s impossible to support them except by continuing to hire them to mine coal. When the people who want to eliminate coal power (e.g. Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016) suggest cash transfers, reeducation plans, other industrial investment, etc. to coal-mining regions to offset the loss of coal jobs, the supporters of coal mining reject the proposals as politically infeasible. Instead of setting up advocates for the homeless and environmentalists as enemies, it would be more productive to find mutually acceptable solutions.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  So your argument They are not making an argument. They are trying to translate my words in hopes of bridging some communication gap. Instead of setting up homeless activists and environmentalists as enemies, it would be more productive to find mutually acceptable solutions. I'm an environmental studies major who gave up my car well before I became homeless, in part for environmental reasons. (In the US, this is routinely interpreted as "Obviously, you are just one of the useless and incompetent poor, not qualified to do any well paid work" rather than "Obviously, you are an extremist nutcase environmental enthusiast willing to walk the walk -- literally! -- not just talk the talk." Cuz: logic (by which I mean prejudice and classism).) So, I don't know why on earth you think I personally am setting up homeless activists and environmentalists as enemies. I see myself as qualifying for both labels.
- apacheCamel 8y ago
  Whether the OP meant to say that or not, it does come across like this. I am all aboard making environmental changes that do not put people out but at the same time, these changes need to be done if we want to make any real progress towards a solution. I agree with your conclusion, it seems like the OP is taking the ban of single use plastic bags as a stance against the homeless when in fact it is a stance that aims to help everyone by cleaning up the planet. These two ideas do not need to butt heads.

jacobolus 8y ago

So your argument is something like “if any system or policy incidentally helps the poorest people while also doing lots of unintended damage, then it is immoral to stop doing it, because replacing the incidental aid to the poor now cut off is politically intractable”? This is precisely the same logic that says we need to continue to use coal power plants because otherwise the coal miners will lose their jobs, and it’s impossible to support them except by continuing to hire them to mine coal. When the people who want to eliminate coal power (e.g. Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016) suggest cash transfers, reeducation plans, other industrial investment, etc. to coal-mining regions to offset the loss of coal jobs, the supporters of coal mining reject the proposals as politically infeasible. Instead of setting up advocates for the homeless and environmentalists as enemies, it would be more productive to find mutually acceptable solutions.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
So your argument They are not making an argument. They are trying to translate my words in hopes of bridging some communication gap. Instead of setting up homeless activists and environmentalists as enemies, it would be more productive to find mutually acceptable solutions. I'm an environmental studies major who gave up my car well before I became homeless, in part for environmental reasons. (In the US, this is routinely interpreted as "Obviously, you are just one of the useless and incompetent poor, not qualified to do any well paid work" rather than "Obviously, you are an extremist nutcase environmental enthusiast willing to walk the walk -- literally! -- not just talk the talk." Cuz: logic (by which I mean prejudice and classism).) So, I don't know why on earth you think I personally am setting up homeless activists and environmentalists as enemies. I see myself as qualifying for both labels.
apacheCamel 8y ago
Whether the OP meant to say that or not, it does come across like this. I am all aboard making environmental changes that do not put people out but at the same time, these changes need to be done if we want to make any real progress towards a solution. I agree with your conclusion, it seems like the OP is taking the ban of single use plastic bags as a stance against the homeless when in fact it is a stance that aims to help everyone by cleaning up the planet. These two ideas do not need to butt heads.