4 ms·

I agree. Grouping together "Mentally ill and/or severely drug addicted homeless person dropping syringes and trash across the city" with "Reasonably normal pers

I agree. Grouping together "Mentally ill and/or severely drug addicted homeless person dropping syringes and trash across the city" with "Reasonably normal person who has had really bad luck, or has some weaknesses in maintaining employment but is otherwise a functioning adult" does a huge disservice to any conversation on homelessness.

closeparen 7y ago
Maybe, but it’s disturbingly easy for the latter to become the former.
- cududa 7y ago
  Correct. It’s a quick jump from one to the other. I suspect most people disregard that by saying “well I’d never sink that low if I were homeless.”
Kye 7y ago
What purpose does this distinction serve? It's not obvious that it's better to set them apart. Homelessness is a spectrum of states people can move between. This distinction makes it easier for people to only care about the "good" homeless and forget about the rest.
- geebee 7y ago
  I think it’s extremely important to know how many homeless are profoundly addicted and in a state of total collapse vs how many ar employed but at too low a salary to obtain stable housing. I don’t think this disctinction exists purely to judge, not at all.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    Agreed, but I don't think that makes it useless to keep track of the general total.
- shados 7y ago
  It definitely can have the problem of making one group get less attention. However, the solution to one isn't the same as the other. Helping someone who's in the street because of a mental illness means providing them with treatment. Helping someone who's in the street because they can't afford it means more housing, more job, better minimum wage, whatever. You want both to happen, but its important to know that there's two category of things that need to happen.
  - watwut 7y ago
    They interact. Being homeless or without money makes your mental health worst in all aspects. Having bad mental health just slightly makes you more likely to become poor (dur to more likely fired or just bad decisions).
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  Well, I think one group can be diverted towards receiving mental health treatment of some sort, while the other requires a higher salary and/or more affordable housing.
- whiddershins 7y ago
  Because the intervention that would help people is different based on the forces driving their problems.
- skinnymuch 7y ago
  The tactics to combat each kind are completely different. At least they are once they have become grouped like that.
  - rwmj 7y ago
    By "combat", you mean help?
    - devoply 7y ago
      ... and so we had the war on homelessness, which over time began to be called the war on the homeless.
      - skinnymuch 7y ago
        You could also use my comment in good faith and not turn it into some underlying negative hit piece. The same could be done to a number of your recent comments by taking a word or phrase out of context or from obliviousness (like fear mongering) — when you were clearly not using them in negative ways.
    - skinnymuch 7y ago
      Yes. Did you reply in good faith or not a native English speaker? Or maybe it’s an American thing? Otherwise, the usage is pretty normal. If I had used “fight” would you also say did I mean to help? Since that’s an incredibly common word to use and it’s also technically an aggressive word.
- nwallin 7y ago
  They are different problems with different solutions. The victims of the "bad" homeless are the rest of society. The victims are the people who are assaulted, they're the people whose property is damaged, they're the people who commute by car instead of by bus/train because public transportation isn't safe, they're the people whose communities are destroyed. The solution to this problem is to wall these people off from the rest of society. The victims of the "good" homeless are the homeless people themselves. The solution to this problem is homeless shelters, universal healthcare, affordable housing, and a stronger social safety net. The fact that we don't acknowledge how radically different these problems are means that we solve neither of them. Nobody wants to welcome the "bad" homeless back into our communities or give them free handouts, and nobody wants to criminalize health conditions that make it difficult to work, or temporary setbacks that could be overcome if they had a safe place to sleep. The purpose the distinction serves is to have the correct conversation about these problems. It's to help the "good" homeless who just need a little help, and to limit the catastrophic damage the "bad" homeless are doing to our society.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    The rest of society are victims of the "bad" homeless (so walling them off may be necessary), but that does not mean that they are not also their own victims.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - kelnos 7y ago
    > The solution to this problem is to wall these ["bad" homeless] people off from the rest of society. That shows a disturbing lack of understanding and empathy. A lot of people who you term "bad" homeless started out "good" but saw their mental state severely deteriorate as a consequence of being homeless. And even for people for whom that's not the case, the solution is to find them help for their mental health issues. Yes, a part of that might involve involuntary commitment to an institution (though CA has lost its ability to do that for the most part), but... damn, "wall these people off from the rest of society"? That's pretty heartless.
- dk1138 7y ago
  Why wouldn’t you have this distinction? If you take “homeless” as an issue then I would want a breakout Pareto of those that have mental issues, those that are due to economy, those that are war veterans...etc because when you start to look at solutions you want to know where to focus first to best remedy the issue. That “spectrum of states” has a “spectrum of solutions.”

closeparen 7y ago

Maybe, but it’s disturbingly easy for the latter to become the former.

cududa 7y ago
Correct. It’s a quick jump from one to the other. I suspect most people disregard that by saying “well I’d never sink that low if I were homeless.”

Kye 7y ago

What purpose does this distinction serve? It's not obvious that it's better to set them apart. Homelessness is a spectrum of states people can move between. This distinction makes it easier for people to only care about the "good" homeless and forget about the rest.

geebee 7y ago
I think it’s extremely important to know how many homeless are profoundly addicted and in a state of total collapse vs how many ar employed but at too low a salary to obtain stable housing. I don’t think this disctinction exists purely to judge, not at all.
- kelnos 7y ago
  Agreed, but I don't think that makes it useless to keep track of the general total.
shados 7y ago
It definitely can have the problem of making one group get less attention. However, the solution to one isn't the same as the other. Helping someone who's in the street because of a mental illness means providing them with treatment. Helping someone who's in the street because they can't afford it means more housing, more job, better minimum wage, whatever. You want both to happen, but its important to know that there's two category of things that need to happen.
- watwut 7y ago
  They interact. Being homeless or without money makes your mental health worst in all aspects. Having bad mental health just slightly makes you more likely to become poor (dur to more likely fired or just bad decisions).
dillonmckay 7y ago
Well, I think one group can be diverted towards receiving mental health treatment of some sort, while the other requires a higher salary and/or more affordable housing.
whiddershins 7y ago
Because the intervention that would help people is different based on the forces driving their problems.
skinnymuch 7y ago
The tactics to combat each kind are completely different. At least they are once they have become grouped like that.
- rwmj 7y ago
  By "combat", you mean help?
  - devoply 7y ago
    ... and so we had the war on homelessness, which over time began to be called the war on the homeless.
    - skinnymuch 7y ago
      You could also use my comment in good faith and not turn it into some underlying negative hit piece. The same could be done to a number of your recent comments by taking a word or phrase out of context or from obliviousness (like fear mongering) — when you were clearly not using them in negative ways.
  - skinnymuch 7y ago
    Yes. Did you reply in good faith or not a native English speaker? Or maybe it’s an American thing? Otherwise, the usage is pretty normal. If I had used “fight” would you also say did I mean to help? Since that’s an incredibly common word to use and it’s also technically an aggressive word.
nwallin 7y ago
They are different problems with different solutions. The victims of the "bad" homeless are the rest of society. The victims are the people who are assaulted, they're the people whose property is damaged, they're the people who commute by car instead of by bus/train because public transportation isn't safe, they're the people whose communities are destroyed. The solution to this problem is to wall these people off from the rest of society. The victims of the "good" homeless are the homeless people themselves. The solution to this problem is homeless shelters, universal healthcare, affordable housing, and a stronger social safety net. The fact that we don't acknowledge how radically different these problems are means that we solve neither of them. Nobody wants to welcome the "bad" homeless back into our communities or give them free handouts, and nobody wants to criminalize health conditions that make it difficult to work, or temporary setbacks that could be overcome if they had a safe place to sleep. The purpose the distinction serves is to have the correct conversation about these problems. It's to help the "good" homeless who just need a little help, and to limit the catastrophic damage the "bad" homeless are doing to our society.
- anoncake 7y ago
  The rest of society are victims of the "bad" homeless (so walling them off may be necessary), but that does not mean that they are not also their own victims.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- kelnos 7y ago
  > The solution to this problem is to wall these ["bad" homeless] people off from the rest of society. That shows a disturbing lack of understanding and empathy. A lot of people who you term "bad" homeless started out "good" but saw their mental state severely deteriorate as a consequence of being homeless. And even for people for whom that's not the case, the solution is to find them help for their mental health issues. Yes, a part of that might involve involuntary commitment to an institution (though CA has lost its ability to do that for the most part), but... damn, "wall these people off from the rest of society"? That's pretty heartless.
dk1138 7y ago
Why wouldn’t you have this distinction? If you take “homeless” as an issue then I would want a breakout Pareto of those that have mental issues, those that are due to economy, those that are war veterans...etc because when you start to look at solutions you want to know where to focus first to best remedy the issue. That “spectrum of states” has a “spectrum of solutions.”