4 ms·
I'm not convinced that characterizing people who are mentally ill as "ruiners" is a particularly helpful taxonomy whether you're looking to understand homelessn
by 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 agoI 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).