i mean, it's pretty difficult to look at the totality of the parent comment and conclude that they were just simply frustrated that we don't have a compassionat

i mean, it's pretty difficult to look at the totality of the parent comment and conclude that they were just simply frustrated that we don't have a compassionate solution yet. "aggressive rant against homeless people that concludes with fascism" would be a more cogent description. given the obvious housing shortage, the responsible solution is ultimately a matter of political and public will, and the powers that be don't want to spend money on the problem when it's been rapaciously isolated to the less affluent parts of cities. i'd be kicking back and not worrying about it too if i could export all the homeless into the various affluent hills of LA and not have to experience it regularly. so the right people to be angry at are not the homeless themselves but the administrators, politicians, and their wealthy donors who collectively have all the power and money they need to fix the problem, and yet are doing approximately nothing (more) about it. i'd readily sign a petition to impeach mayor garcetti over just this one issue (but sadly not just this one). > "It's putting the responsibility for action on the women getting assaulted." no, it's not. it's admitting that there is a range of potential responses, and pointing out one proactive response (not a responsibility). the inverse-converse isn't implied nor can it be derived from that statement. beyond that, it sounds like your experience is exceptional in that you're somehow exposed to more negative such experiences with homeless men than the average woman (let alone the average person), and perhaps fewer such experiences with non-homeless men, which makes it maybe a greater-than-2-or-3-sigma kind of exceptional. lastly, housing the homeless can reduce the inter-homeless violence you mention. it's the compassionate solution that also has positive externalities for the public.