38 ms·

Take your virtue signaling elsewhere, Prophet Amos. That incident was evidence that the city does not care about the quality of life of its residents (both the

Take your virtue signaling elsewhere, Prophet Amos. That incident was evidence that the city does not care about the quality of life of its residents (both the non-homeless, who are expected to suck it up and grin, and the homeless, who probably haven't been given any psychiatric treatment or any sort of intervention whatsoever by the state); it was not about blaming poor people.

romanoderoma 6y ago
Wow. Thanks so much for teaching me how to live. I'm sorry that the city where you live is such a terrible place, I come from a poor country in Europe and homeless people here are treated freely by the State, because people taxes pay for public universal health care. And every neighborhood in every city has their own local homeless that are part of the living tissue of the place, not a nuisance (or something to bring up when you talk with others about what's wrong in your city, we use holes in the road and waste management). I understand that when you are a rich country, you can't afford to waste resources on it. I also understand that it's easier to blame a middle aged man like me for "virtue signaling" (I don't even know what that means, sorry) than apologizing. Homelessness as "a problem" is the symptom of a selfish society, more than a failure in city management. Anyway "that incident" is an anecdote, it doesn't prove anything, nobody knows if it's the truth, it's simply blaming the poor, disguised as caring about the city.
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  How many homeless people have you met in SF? I've talked 1:1 with about 3, and in all three cases the people refused ample help due to 1) not wanting to go to rehab or 2) paranoid schizophrenia, which the city won't deal with to avoid civil rights problems. Boiling everything down to 'homelessness means society is selfish' is over simplifying an incredibly complicated problem. There are things that can be done, but it requires a lot more thought than holding hands and handing out free stuff. SF is probably the least selfish city on the planet, which is arguably part of the problem.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    Homelessness as "a problem to deal with" means society is selfish, means exactly what you wrote. A society where people refuse to see it as a social issue, like sickness, and one that requires a lot of thought because you have to remove them from the eyes of people but don't want to deal with the consequences because it's actually a cleanse under a different name (decency, decorum, etc.). If SF is the least selfish on the planet (which it isn't, unless you consider a few American cities the World), why people refuse to live with what is obviously a byproduct of their lifestyle? You can't have all the advantages without any of the drawbacks. Thinking that it is indeed possible is a symptom of a selfish society. I live near the Colosseum in Rome and there are homeless living here, in the city centre. Some of them have been living here more than I've been alive. Nobody thinks they are a problem or have to accept the help, people here accept that where there are people with a lot of money there are gonna be desperate people as well. Because it's only natural. And because many have been poor or come from poor families, before being wealthy enough to afford a better life. It's easier for homeless to find what they need to survive in the big city in the wealthy neighborhood than in the small village in the country in the poor quarter. They also feel more protected, for obvious reasons (more people with money means more people willing to give, means more wasted food, better illumination, better public services, etc.) For those in need of medical attention, there is the national healthcare, we call the ambulance, they already know who these people are, bring them in, give them food, a bed and a warm shower and they already know they'll be out on the streets again in a couple of days. At least they have been checked and their health conditions assessed. Because it's their job, they don't have to respond to some kind of profit based mechanism, people taxes already paid for it. Homeless are not treated like a problem, like rejected or defective people, they are taken care of. Because it benefits the society at large. Of course some of them are a problem, but it's a tiny minority, our biggest issue is finding as many as possible in winter so they don't die in the street for hypothermia or other cold related disease. Of course is not all roses, we are still talking about people living in the edge of society and sometimes dealing with them is not a pleasant experience, but it's rare. Also the police here don't treat them like criminals, which is an important difference as well, police usually protect them from bad people. They are in fact much more often victims of violence than perpetrators. (According to LAPD report in January this year more than one out of three times police officers used force against homeless people in 2019, a 26% increase from 2018) It's really not that hard, especially for one of the richest cities in the richest country in the World. Unwillingness is a form of selfishness. Not learning from what others already do better is a form of entitlement. Which is a form of selfishness.

romanoderoma 6y ago

Wow. Thanks so much for teaching me how to live. I'm sorry that the city where you live is such a terrible place, I come from a poor country in Europe and homeless people here are treated freely by the State, because people taxes pay for public universal health care. And every neighborhood in every city has their own local homeless that are part of the living tissue of the place, not a nuisance (or something to bring up when you talk with others about what's wrong in your city, we use holes in the road and waste management). I understand that when you are a rich country, you can't afford to waste resources on it. I also understand that it's easier to blame a middle aged man like me for "virtue signaling" (I don't even know what that means, sorry) than apologizing. Homelessness as "a problem" is the symptom of a selfish society, more than a failure in city management. Anyway "that incident" is an anecdote, it doesn't prove anything, nobody knows if it's the truth, it's simply blaming the poor, disguised as caring about the city.

BobbyJo 6y ago
How many homeless people have you met in SF? I've talked 1:1 with about 3, and in all three cases the people refused ample help due to 1) not wanting to go to rehab or 2) paranoid schizophrenia, which the city won't deal with to avoid civil rights problems. Boiling everything down to 'homelessness means society is selfish' is over simplifying an incredibly complicated problem. There are things that can be done, but it requires a lot more thought than holding hands and handing out free stuff. SF is probably the least selfish city on the planet, which is arguably part of the problem.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  Homelessness as "a problem to deal with" means society is selfish, means exactly what you wrote. A society where people refuse to see it as a social issue, like sickness, and one that requires a lot of thought because you have to remove them from the eyes of people but don't want to deal with the consequences because it's actually a cleanse under a different name (decency, decorum, etc.). If SF is the least selfish on the planet (which it isn't, unless you consider a few American cities the World), why people refuse to live with what is obviously a byproduct of their lifestyle? You can't have all the advantages without any of the drawbacks. Thinking that it is indeed possible is a symptom of a selfish society. I live near the Colosseum in Rome and there are homeless living here, in the city centre. Some of them have been living here more than I've been alive. Nobody thinks they are a problem or have to accept the help, people here accept that where there are people with a lot of money there are gonna be desperate people as well. Because it's only natural. And because many have been poor or come from poor families, before being wealthy enough to afford a better life. It's easier for homeless to find what they need to survive in the big city in the wealthy neighborhood than in the small village in the country in the poor quarter. They also feel more protected, for obvious reasons (more people with money means more people willing to give, means more wasted food, better illumination, better public services, etc.) For those in need of medical attention, there is the national healthcare, we call the ambulance, they already know who these people are, bring them in, give them food, a bed and a warm shower and they already know they'll be out on the streets again in a couple of days. At least they have been checked and their health conditions assessed. Because it's their job, they don't have to respond to some kind of profit based mechanism, people taxes already paid for it. Homeless are not treated like a problem, like rejected or defective people, they are taken care of. Because it benefits the society at large. Of course some of them are a problem, but it's a tiny minority, our biggest issue is finding as many as possible in winter so they don't die in the street for hypothermia or other cold related disease. Of course is not all roses, we are still talking about people living in the edge of society and sometimes dealing with them is not a pleasant experience, but it's rare. Also the police here don't treat them like criminals, which is an important difference as well, police usually protect them from bad people. They are in fact much more often victims of violence than perpetrators. (According to LAPD report in January this year more than one out of three times police officers used force against homeless people in 2019, a 26% increase from 2018) It's really not that hard, especially for one of the richest cities in the richest country in the World. Unwillingness is a form of selfishness. Not learning from what others already do better is a form of entitlement. Which is a form of selfishness.