4 ms·

I find a lot of criticism and hate of homeless people in our tech world. Which I kind of don’t get because a lot of tech people are quite liberal. I would expe

I find a lot of criticism and hate of homeless people in our tech world. Which I kind of don’t get because a lot of tech people are quite liberal. I would expect a softer heart to follow as well as concern for these (and all) people.

youeseh 8y ago
Many tech people may come across as being socially liberal but they aren't necessarily financially / economically liberal. They also aren't necessarily liberal when it comes to their personal safety.
- valleyjo 8y ago
  This is social liberalism though! Creating programs for all to survive and thrive and have a shot at a decent life. It’s the same thing with the NIMBY (not in my backyard) movement. Everyone wants to complain about high housing costs, but as soon as they themselves get a house they want to protect their wealth by blocking new housing developments. I find the contradictions frustrating
  - youeseh 8y ago
    I think we're working with different definitions of social liberalism. My understanding is that people are socially liberal when they are in varying degrees okay with lifestyle choices of others that differ from their own, as long as those choices don't impede on their own lives (too much).
  - candiodari 8y ago
    There are many people who are only socially liberal because of the popularity of that viewpoint. Obviously when it comes to taking action they turn out to be anything but. Once you realize that the vast majority of the bay area is there to maximize their own financial advantage, not to change the world, the bay area makes a lot more sense.
zdragnar 8y ago
There are different types of homelessness, and different levels of visibility and effects on the community. On one end of the spectrum, temporary homelessness typically garners the most sympathy, and brings the least trouble in terms of drug use and other petty crime. On the other end, the chronic homeless are harder to deal with. My ex who worked with the local metro homeless population was frustrated by these, who through mental illness and / or drug use were simply not capable of dealing with the responsibilities needed to maintain a home or apartment; things like getting a job and not getting evicted for various bad behavior reasons. The hardest to deal with were those who refused to get help; no medicine, no job training program, no finance management couse, nothing accepted but food and cash. These are the ones who are often the most visible- defecating on sidewalks, drugs, harassing people who are just going about their day. You can have the biggest heart in the world, and you still won't be able to help them short of bringing back forced institutionalization, which no one wants either.
- oppositelock 8y ago
  A good start might be a requirement to be an SF resident, homeless or otherwise, for some period of time, say 1 year, before being eligible for homeless benefits. It'll keep the area's homeless from flooding in from less generous cities.
  - zdragnar 8y ago
    It's an interesting idea, but I have no clue how to establish a person's residence when they don't have a street address to receive mail, utility bills, etc. Practically by definition, the homeless do not have residence. People who recently have become homeless would qualify, assuming they could provide mail or something from a year ago, but even that seems like a stretch for most people, I think. Also, I don't know about SF, bit quite a few of the services provided here in the Midwest are privately run (I.e. in association with churches or otherwise non-profit), and I don't know that such a ban could be imposed on them.
  - masonic 8y ago
    That's illegal (well established in case law).
hellllllllooo 8y ago
A lot of tech people seem to be libertarian and don't like paying for public services that might go towards actually helping these people. In my experience people are not really that left wing in the valley when it comes to money.
throwawaystale 8y ago
In my experience, there's no correlation between someone's kindness and their politics. People are individuals--watch what each individual does.

youeseh 8y ago

Many tech people may come across as being socially liberal but they aren't necessarily financially / economically liberal. They also aren't necessarily liberal when it comes to their personal safety.

valleyjo 8y ago
This is social liberalism though! Creating programs for all to survive and thrive and have a shot at a decent life. It’s the same thing with the NIMBY (not in my backyard) movement. Everyone wants to complain about high housing costs, but as soon as they themselves get a house they want to protect their wealth by blocking new housing developments. I find the contradictions frustrating
- youeseh 8y ago
  I think we're working with different definitions of social liberalism. My understanding is that people are socially liberal when they are in varying degrees okay with lifestyle choices of others that differ from their own, as long as those choices don't impede on their own lives (too much).
- candiodari 8y ago
  There are many people who are only socially liberal because of the popularity of that viewpoint. Obviously when it comes to taking action they turn out to be anything but. Once you realize that the vast majority of the bay area is there to maximize their own financial advantage, not to change the world, the bay area makes a lot more sense.

zdragnar 8y ago

There are different types of homelessness, and different levels of visibility and effects on the community. On one end of the spectrum, temporary homelessness typically garners the most sympathy, and brings the least trouble in terms of drug use and other petty crime. On the other end, the chronic homeless are harder to deal with. My ex who worked with the local metro homeless population was frustrated by these, who through mental illness and / or drug use were simply not capable of dealing with the responsibilities needed to maintain a home or apartment; things like getting a job and not getting evicted for various bad behavior reasons. The hardest to deal with were those who refused to get help; no medicine, no job training program, no finance management couse, nothing accepted but food and cash. These are the ones who are often the most visible- defecating on sidewalks, drugs, harassing people who are just going about their day. You can have the biggest heart in the world, and you still won't be able to help them short of bringing back forced institutionalization, which no one wants either.

oppositelock 8y ago
A good start might be a requirement to be an SF resident, homeless or otherwise, for some period of time, say 1 year, before being eligible for homeless benefits. It'll keep the area's homeless from flooding in from less generous cities.
- zdragnar 8y ago
  It's an interesting idea, but I have no clue how to establish a person's residence when they don't have a street address to receive mail, utility bills, etc. Practically by definition, the homeless do not have residence. People who recently have become homeless would qualify, assuming they could provide mail or something from a year ago, but even that seems like a stretch for most people, I think. Also, I don't know about SF, bit quite a few of the services provided here in the Midwest are privately run (I.e. in association with churches or otherwise non-profit), and I don't know that such a ban could be imposed on them.
- masonic 8y ago
  That's illegal (well established in case law).

hellllllllooo 8y ago

A lot of tech people seem to be libertarian and don't like paying for public services that might go towards actually helping these people. In my experience people are not really that left wing in the valley when it comes to money.

throwawaystale 8y ago

In my experience, there's no correlation between someone's kindness and their politics. People are individuals--watch what each individual does.