6 ms·

I downvoted this because as someone that has been what many consider homeless in San Francisco, I am a little insulted by this attitude. It comes across as some

I downvoted this because as someone that has been what many consider homeless in San Francisco, I am a little insulted by this attitude. It comes across as someone that has never lived this life claiming that it is a good life and generalizing over the homeless population as freebies and criminals. If there exists a complicated social problem that involves thousands of human beings and someone on the internet claims to have an explanation for it in 10 paragraphs or less, that explanation is probably overly simplistic.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
I downvoted you because I am insulted by this attitude. As someone who comes from a country of starvation deaths, I can easily see how the homeless in SF would be considered the 1% of the world. If the milk of human kindness is all about spreading the wealth..how about spreading the wealth to other countries? Why should I pay for the homeless in SF when they live in the richest country in the world when I can send the money to Kenya or Vietnam or India and truly create meaningful impact. And so that’s what I do. My taxes already pay towards the healthcare, food and if in SF..smart phone and BART tickets for the homeless. No more tax hikes without an explanation for the $350 million dollars spent in just one year for SF homeless population.
- runarberg 6y ago
  I actually upvoted that because I glad you left this comment. It provides an essential perspective for the global distribution of wealth. USA is the richest and the most powerful nation in the world and it is a ridiculous power dynamic that has no justification. The USA cannot provide housing option for some of its population, but even worse, the USA consistently steals wealth from other nations leaving them impoverished just so they can provide cheap goods for their own citizens. It is always good to get a reminder that for every USA resident the government leaves behind there are hundreds of impoverished non-USA citizen that still has to pay for it.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    Thanks. I agree. But there needs to be no justification. The USA does not steal wealth from other nations. Please substantiate this comment with an example. Wealth is not an indicator of quality of life. I have seen this over and over again amongst the rich and the poor. All we can do is live well so we are not a burden to others. The next best thing to do is help when we can. What I am against..on principle..is that we look to someone else for our happiness. Or survival. I am an immigrant too. I left my country of origin for one reason and one reason only..upper economic mobility. Many immigrants cause reverse brain drain. I have a better quality of life and I can uplift people within my circle of influence. I can do better as an American than as a citizen of my country of origin. And I enjoy the comforts of my new life. And that’s fine with me. I don’t believe we can heal the world by squeezing the hearts of the collective rich. I don’t understand why I should support someone who doesn’t want to leave SF because it’s chill while I had to leave behind my native country, my family and friends and all things familiar because I wanted the same thing as them. Comfort and quality of life. Only..I was willing to make sacrifices and trade offs. It’s difficult to empathize because it would make a mockery of the sacrifices that I had to make because I wanted something. We can’t ask others to sacrifice their money because some people don’t want to make any sacrifices for their own desires. We have seen that money doesn’t solve problems. In SF alone..350+ million did not solve homelessness or drug addiction or mental illness or despair due to poverty. So what is the answer. If the pitchforks against the rich are laid down and the energy is properly channelized to find meaningful solutions, we will get somewhere. My motto: Do what you have to do. Others are not a measure. What I am NOT is a fan of guilty self flagellation. If I am not going to flagellate myself, why would I allow others to do it to me?
    - runarberg 6y ago
      > It’s difficult to empathize because it would make a mockery of the sacrifices that I had to make because I wanted something. This is a really good and important point. I immigrated from one of the wealthiest countries in the world to the USA. Off course I made sacrifices while immigrating but those sacrifices were not nearly on the same scale as someone immigrating from a place of poverty. I can still visit my family regularly and they can visit me (even though they are of working class; if it were not for a global pandemic off course; for me it’s not that expensive even if it is a little expensive for them). If anything I should be trying harder to empathize with you. In honesty me and my partner always had the option of moving to my place of origin, they could enjoy the free education we provide there and get a degree there instead. If I were not from a rich nation that would not be an option. In honesty we choice to live in a van. Sure we were underprivileged to the average San Franciscan, but as an immigrant I had it pretty good. And it wouldn’t have been the end of the world if we were forced to live in my country of origin. We actually ended up moving there anyway. But it turns out that even though USA is officially pretty hostile towards immigrants, my country of origin is far more xenophobic then Americans are, so we ended up moving back (me being a white person probably has a lot to say about the acceptance though). I know I didn’t really answer you in a meaningful way here. I really only said that your voice matters as much—if not more—as mine. After all I am a person of privilege by virtue of both my skin color and my place of origin (even though I’m born of working class). So to third party readers I guess I’m saying: Read the parent carefully, and understand their perspective. I might have a lot to say because of my experience of living in a van in San Francisco, but there are other people—like the parent—that also have a lot to say, and their perspective is just as valuable—if not more—then mine.
- hevelvarik 6y ago
  I downvoted you because I am insulted by your being insulted by his attitude while being insulted. (I didn’t really downvote you)
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  We can do both. This post is not helpful or productive as it trivializes the argument it responds to and serves as a diversion rather than a productive response; it’s a red herring argument.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    No, we can’t do both. Imagine you walk into a theatre thinking it’s going to be a Hitchcock movie. After the 12th minute, they start showing Groundhog Day. They ask you to come back the next day. You return. Again, after the 12th minute, Groundhog Day. Again, they ask you to come back the next day. And they don’t return the money you paid for your ticket. Or a credit. You have to pay for a ticket again. Everyday. Now. How often are you going to keep returning to someone who steals from you and knows you will return. Meanwhile, any theatre next street is playing the Hitchcock flick. What would a reasonable rational person do?
    - digitaltrees 6y ago
      Your response doesn’t show that we can’t do both. We do have the resources and social science knowledge to accomplish both objectives. I don’t really follow your theater analogy, perhaps you can provide an alternate argument so I, and others can understand why you feel that resources are scarce, limited, and the objectives are mutually exclusive.
      - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        1. Please define ‘both’ 2. Please elaborate ‘..we can do both’
      - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        We don’t have ‘resources’. We have a mechanism for instituting punitive taxes on a minority just because they are wealthy for a spending plan that has no clear path to success. And who is ‘we’? Peter and Paul want to tax Bob to hand over $$ to Jack and Jill.
  - 6y ago
sushid 6y ago
Yes, people from all walks of life may end up homeless but I'm tired of hearing stories of my friends being robbed at gunpoint/knifepoint or straight up assaulted for a phone and a wallet. People walk into stores and steal without impunity, shoot up drugs, shit in the middle of a street, etc. It's truly appalling. As far as being homeless goes, the homeless here are free to fuck things up for the rest of us.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Honest question why are you blaming the homeless for fucking up things for the rest of us? In my experience the rich are far more guilty (as a generalized group) of fucking things up for me. The rich have polluted the planet, raised the global temperature up a whole degree. The damage is that now I can’t go outside in late summer, if it doesn’t rain the week before, because the air is poisoned by soot from forest fires. The rich are the reason I couldn’t afford a place to rent in San Francisco, their speculative housing investment and gentrification raised the marked rate so much that a working class person from one of the richest country in the world couldn’t afford to live there. The rich are the reason—unless you are one of them—that you are not making significantly more money from your current job, they consistently take away from your contribution to the wealth you generate in your current job without contributing anything of value.
  - digitaltrees 6y ago
    I agree that the scale of damage is greater. I just caution anyone grouping people based on belonging to a category. Being rich doesn’t mean you polluted more than others. Al Gore is rich, but he was kind of focused on that issue.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      So for every 100 rich folks that have screwed you over you have an Al Gore that doesn’t. Please have the perspective also that for every homeless person that mugs someone you heard of, there are thousands that wouldn’t even think of doing anything even close to that.
smsm42 6y ago
I never claimed it is a good life. I never generalized anything. I am not sure where you found it. What I claimed is many of the people who spend billions of dollars on this problem have incentive to not have it actually solved (as in gone, no problem anymore) - for reasons both political and selfish. I also never claimed I have an explanation for the problem of homelessness. I only have an explanation for why the government of San Francisco does not appear to be able to make any progress in solving it despite spending a real lot of money on it.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

I downvoted you because I am insulted by this attitude. As someone who comes from a country of starvation deaths, I can easily see how the homeless in SF would be considered the 1% of the world. If the milk of human kindness is all about spreading the wealth..how about spreading the wealth to other countries? Why should I pay for the homeless in SF when they live in the richest country in the world when I can send the money to Kenya or Vietnam or India and truly create meaningful impact. And so that’s what I do. My taxes already pay towards the healthcare, food and if in SF..smart phone and BART tickets for the homeless. No more tax hikes without an explanation for the $350 million dollars spent in just one year for SF homeless population.

runarberg 6y ago
I actually upvoted that because I glad you left this comment. It provides an essential perspective for the global distribution of wealth. USA is the richest and the most powerful nation in the world and it is a ridiculous power dynamic that has no justification. The USA cannot provide housing option for some of its population, but even worse, the USA consistently steals wealth from other nations leaving them impoverished just so they can provide cheap goods for their own citizens. It is always good to get a reminder that for every USA resident the government leaves behind there are hundreds of impoverished non-USA citizen that still has to pay for it.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Thanks. I agree. But there needs to be no justification. The USA does not steal wealth from other nations. Please substantiate this comment with an example. Wealth is not an indicator of quality of life. I have seen this over and over again amongst the rich and the poor. All we can do is live well so we are not a burden to others. The next best thing to do is help when we can. What I am against..on principle..is that we look to someone else for our happiness. Or survival. I am an immigrant too. I left my country of origin for one reason and one reason only..upper economic mobility. Many immigrants cause reverse brain drain. I have a better quality of life and I can uplift people within my circle of influence. I can do better as an American than as a citizen of my country of origin. And I enjoy the comforts of my new life. And that’s fine with me. I don’t believe we can heal the world by squeezing the hearts of the collective rich. I don’t understand why I should support someone who doesn’t want to leave SF because it’s chill while I had to leave behind my native country, my family and friends and all things familiar because I wanted the same thing as them. Comfort and quality of life. Only..I was willing to make sacrifices and trade offs. It’s difficult to empathize because it would make a mockery of the sacrifices that I had to make because I wanted something. We can’t ask others to sacrifice their money because some people don’t want to make any sacrifices for their own desires. We have seen that money doesn’t solve problems. In SF alone..350+ million did not solve homelessness or drug addiction or mental illness or despair due to poverty. So what is the answer. If the pitchforks against the rich are laid down and the energy is properly channelized to find meaningful solutions, we will get somewhere. My motto: Do what you have to do. Others are not a measure. What I am NOT is a fan of guilty self flagellation. If I am not going to flagellate myself, why would I allow others to do it to me?
  - runarberg 6y ago
    > It’s difficult to empathize because it would make a mockery of the sacrifices that I had to make because I wanted something. This is a really good and important point. I immigrated from one of the wealthiest countries in the world to the USA. Off course I made sacrifices while immigrating but those sacrifices were not nearly on the same scale as someone immigrating from a place of poverty. I can still visit my family regularly and they can visit me (even though they are of working class; if it were not for a global pandemic off course; for me it’s not that expensive even if it is a little expensive for them). If anything I should be trying harder to empathize with you. In honesty me and my partner always had the option of moving to my place of origin, they could enjoy the free education we provide there and get a degree there instead. If I were not from a rich nation that would not be an option. In honesty we choice to live in a van. Sure we were underprivileged to the average San Franciscan, but as an immigrant I had it pretty good. And it wouldn’t have been the end of the world if we were forced to live in my country of origin. We actually ended up moving there anyway. But it turns out that even though USA is officially pretty hostile towards immigrants, my country of origin is far more xenophobic then Americans are, so we ended up moving back (me being a white person probably has a lot to say about the acceptance though). I know I didn’t really answer you in a meaningful way here. I really only said that your voice matters as much—if not more—as mine. After all I am a person of privilege by virtue of both my skin color and my place of origin (even though I’m born of working class). So to third party readers I guess I’m saying: Read the parent carefully, and understand their perspective. I might have a lot to say because of my experience of living in a van in San Francisco, but there are other people—like the parent—that also have a lot to say, and their perspective is just as valuable—if not more—then mine.
hevelvarik 6y ago
I downvoted you because I am insulted by your being insulted by his attitude while being insulted. (I didn’t really downvote you)
digitaltrees 6y ago
We can do both. This post is not helpful or productive as it trivializes the argument it responds to and serves as a diversion rather than a productive response; it’s a red herring argument.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  No, we can’t do both. Imagine you walk into a theatre thinking it’s going to be a Hitchcock movie. After the 12th minute, they start showing Groundhog Day. They ask you to come back the next day. You return. Again, after the 12th minute, Groundhog Day. Again, they ask you to come back the next day. And they don’t return the money you paid for your ticket. Or a credit. You have to pay for a ticket again. Everyday. Now. How often are you going to keep returning to someone who steals from you and knows you will return. Meanwhile, any theatre next street is playing the Hitchcock flick. What would a reasonable rational person do?
  - digitaltrees 6y ago
    Your response doesn’t show that we can’t do both. We do have the resources and social science knowledge to accomplish both objectives. I don’t really follow your theater analogy, perhaps you can provide an alternate argument so I, and others can understand why you feel that resources are scarce, limited, and the objectives are mutually exclusive.
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      1. Please define ‘both’ 2. Please elaborate ‘..we can do both’
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      We don’t have ‘resources’. We have a mechanism for instituting punitive taxes on a minority just because they are wealthy for a spending plan that has no clear path to success. And who is ‘we’? Peter and Paul want to tax Bob to hand over $$ to Jack and Jill.
- 6y ago

sushid 6y ago

Yes, people from all walks of life may end up homeless but I'm tired of hearing stories of my friends being robbed at gunpoint/knifepoint or straight up assaulted for a phone and a wallet. People walk into stores and steal without impunity, shoot up drugs, shit in the middle of a street, etc. It's truly appalling. As far as being homeless goes, the homeless here are free to fuck things up for the rest of us.

runarberg 6y ago
Honest question why are you blaming the homeless for fucking up things for the rest of us? In my experience the rich are far more guilty (as a generalized group) of fucking things up for me. The rich have polluted the planet, raised the global temperature up a whole degree. The damage is that now I can’t go outside in late summer, if it doesn’t rain the week before, because the air is poisoned by soot from forest fires. The rich are the reason I couldn’t afford a place to rent in San Francisco, their speculative housing investment and gentrification raised the marked rate so much that a working class person from one of the richest country in the world couldn’t afford to live there. The rich are the reason—unless you are one of them—that you are not making significantly more money from your current job, they consistently take away from your contribution to the wealth you generate in your current job without contributing anything of value.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  I agree that the scale of damage is greater. I just caution anyone grouping people based on belonging to a category. Being rich doesn’t mean you polluted more than others. Al Gore is rich, but he was kind of focused on that issue.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    So for every 100 rich folks that have screwed you over you have an Al Gore that doesn’t. Please have the perspective also that for every homeless person that mugs someone you heard of, there are thousands that wouldn’t even think of doing anything even close to that.

smsm42 6y ago

I never claimed it is a good life. I never generalized anything. I am not sure where you found it. What I claimed is many of the people who spend billions of dollars on this problem have incentive to not have it actually solved (as in gone, no problem anymore) - for reasons both political and selfish. I also never claimed I have an explanation for the problem of homelessness. I only have an explanation for why the government of San Francisco does not appear to be able to make any progress in solving it despite spending a real lot of money on it.