3 ms·

The bit on 'ruiners' is overly judgemental, lumping people who are clearly upset and mentally ill in with predators. Yes, there are sociopaths and predators in

The bit on 'ruiners' is overly judgemental, lumping people who are clearly upset and mentally ill in with predators. Yes, there are sociopaths and predators in homeless shelters, but a lot of the behaviors being picked out in group 5 are just signs of mental illness and distress - just a severe point on the continuum of group 4. Also, a category that's neglected is people who could be served by existing shelter or halfway house infrastructure but choose to avoid it: I know of people who are 'homeless by choice' as a result of facilities being either (a) too scary/chaotic or (b) too moralizing (e.g. 'dry'). There's also a good deal of youth homelessness which falls into many of these categories without cleanly matching any one of them. Sometimes kids leave households because they are 'wild', but frequently because the households are dysfunctional and couch-surfing or sleeping on the streets is perceived to be no more dangerous than being at home (or being shunted into foster care).

ericmcer 8y ago
I agree with the 'ruiners' label though, especially living in SF, the vast majority of homeless are minding their own business and trying to get by. If you pass by 100 in your day and just one happens to be openly shitting in front of you, you might walk away saying, 'the homeless are really ruining the city', in spite of 99% of your encounters being neutral.
- glangdale 8y ago
  I'm not convinced that characterizing people who are mentally ill as "ruiners" is a particularly helpful taxonomy whether you're looking to understand homelessness or help fix it. I think it just serves as a tough-talking catchall category for "homeless I don't like" here (like we'll cut the 'bad ones' out of the herd and then be nice to everyone else). I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of labelling people as 'ruiners' - even when they have have behaviours that are in fact ruining cities, shelters, etc. This is particularly pernicious because the author doesn't bother to separate out predatory behavior ("robbing other homeless people") from mental illness ("painting the walls with poo"). It's like the author just ran out of compassion somewhere down the list and said "fuck the rest of these guys".
  - treis 8y ago
    >I'm not convinced that characterizing people who are mentally ill as "ruiners" They're not. They fall into: >4. People who can’t survive the modern world without assistance
    - glangdale 8y ago
      I am aware that he says that people can be in multiple categories. However, many of the things he describes in the ruiner category are way more typical of mental illness, which to me is deeply problematic. The focus appears to be on how bad the people in category 5 are. It's attaching a shitty, judgemental label to very sick people at the very bottom rung of society. Yes, there are scammers, predators and just plain assholes in the homeless world (and these people should be in a much smaller and better thought out 'ruiner' category). However, the difference between someone who "needs a bit of help to get through the day" and "someone who is painting the walls of their room in poo" is largely a matter of degree (i.e. one requires massive quantities more help to stabilze).

ericmcer 8y ago

I agree with the 'ruiners' label though, especially living in SF, the vast majority of homeless are minding their own business and trying to get by. If you pass by 100 in your day and just one happens to be openly shitting in front of you, you might walk away saying, 'the homeless are really ruining the city', in spite of 99% of your encounters being neutral.

glangdale 8y ago
I'm not convinced that characterizing people who are mentally ill as "ruiners" is a particularly helpful taxonomy whether you're looking to understand homelessness or help fix it. I think it just serves as a tough-talking catchall category for "homeless I don't like" here (like we'll cut the 'bad ones' out of the herd and then be nice to everyone else). I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of labelling people as 'ruiners' - even when they have have behaviours that are in fact ruining cities, shelters, etc. This is particularly pernicious because the author doesn't bother to separate out predatory behavior ("robbing other homeless people") from mental illness ("painting the walls with poo"). It's like the author just ran out of compassion somewhere down the list and said "fuck the rest of these guys".
- treis 8y ago
  >I'm not convinced that characterizing people who are mentally ill as "ruiners" They're not. They fall into: >4. People who can’t survive the modern world without assistance
  - glangdale 8y ago
    I am aware that he says that people can be in multiple categories. However, many of the things he describes in the ruiner category are way more typical of mental illness, which to me is deeply problematic. The focus appears to be on how bad the people in category 5 are. It's attaching a shitty, judgemental label to very sick people at the very bottom rung of society. Yes, there are scammers, predators and just plain assholes in the homeless world (and these people should be in a much smaller and better thought out 'ruiner' category). However, the difference between someone who "needs a bit of help to get through the day" and "someone who is painting the walls of their room in poo" is largely a matter of degree (i.e. one requires massive quantities more help to stabilze).