6 ms·

The majority sentiment appears to be that homeless people deserve to suffer to some degree, and that without pain they’ll never be properly motivated to get a j

The majority sentiment appears to be that homeless people deserve to suffer to some degree, and that without pain they’ll never be properly motivated to get a job and rejoin society. The fact that this never works doesn’t really seem to dissuade anyone. No city has managed to solve the homelessness problem with anti-sleeping architecture and police crackdowns, but they’ll keep trying.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
> No city has managed to solve the homelessness problem with anti-sleeping architecture and police crackdowns, but they’ll keep trying. That isn’t true, of course they’ve solved their problem using such measures…by pushing them to another city. For example, Bellevue WA will have the riot squad out pretty quickly if you so much as lay down on a bench, and it works since Seattle WA is right across the lake.
joshribakoff 5y ago
I don’t think homeless people should suffer but there should be rules. Instead of allowing people to ruin a sidewalk by storing 100 stolen bicycle scraps and other trash, they should be relocated to safe sleeping sites. Should tax payers have their view ruined, live in stench, and have HIV positive schizophrenic folks with an ax running into their place of business? My friend owns a business and had to stop selling merchandise due to theft. This literally happens daily here. The mayor doesn’t want to place some of these people in conservatorship which is what’s required at a certain point. (I’m aware I’ll be down voted by people who do not live here, haven’t had to call the cops for help themselves, and think I am just exaggerating)
- noobermin 5y ago
  Your comment seems to suggest you don't actually want the situation to get better, you want people to suffer for some reason. The point is the Finland solution actually works and that's why it should be done.
  - joshribakoff 5y ago
    I literally stated I do not want them to suffer. I am not arguing against sleeping sites I clearly stated I am in favor of them I am just stating if someone refuses the safe sleeping sites and continues to break into yoga studios and throw feces and blood at people, maybe there ought to be a backup “solution”. Why does homelessness become an excuse to commit crimes? We can both help homeless people and also not make them immune to laws. Why should my neighbor who is wheelchair bound have no access to her sidewalk because a homeless guy is storing 100 stolen bicycle wheels on the sidewalk? I specifically want more safe sleeping sites, but I also want people arrested if they refuse the safe sleeping site and choose to be a menace to a society.
  - gordian-mind 5y ago
    Very cool application of the "Principle of charity".
    - noobermin 5y ago
      May be I can clarify, when I said, "it suggests..." I probably should have said that if you follow the logic all the way through, they don't want to actually solve the issue. Who cares about how you feel? Do you want to solve homelessness or do you not? What other alternative is there?
bequanna 5y ago
I don’t think the sentiment is that they “deserve to suffer” so much as “why should I be subsidizing the comfort of a group that is so aggressively antisocial?”. I think it is fair to categorize the majority of interactions the public has with the homeless as negative. With most falling somewhere between simple harassment (aggressive panhandling) and serious crime (mugging, assault, property damage, etc). Of course, this is a huge generalization and #notallhomeless blah blah blah… But I think even those that advocate for homeless would have a tough time arguing that they increase the quality of life in the neighborhoods they inhabit.
- noobermin 5y ago
  If you agree homelessness is an issue than the right attitude to have is to reduce it no? The Finland solution actually works, so do it regardless of how you feel about it? Anything short of that means you actually don't want it to get better.
  - bequanna 5y ago
    I’ll go back to what I noted in my original comment: “why should I subsidize the comfort of people who are so aggressively antisocial?” This group has generated so much negative goodwill with the general public that any “logical” solution that requires public $ is going to have a difficult time prevailing. The easiest and intuitively cheapest solution in the minds of most people is: make them go somewhere else.
    - noobermin 5y ago
      My point is you subsidize them or the issue is not fixed and the issue persists including the aspects you don't like. Making them go somewhere else doesn't work because somewhere else will make them go back to you. I get that it's not popular with the public, that's why we have these debates, because the public needs to figure out whether it really wants to solve the issue by partially getting over itself or it doesn't and prefers to live in the bad situation that current exists. EDIT: usually these arguments from the progressives appeals to morality or whatever, but in this case, it's literally an effectiveness argument. It works, regardless how one feels so it should be done. Now, if one argues "well, it might not work here," that to me is a more interesting and worthwhile discussion. But if one's point is "well, I don't dispute whether it works or not or whether it won't work here, I just hate the homeless so much I don't want to do the thing that would actually fix it," leads me to question whether one hates it enough to actually address the issue or not.
rayiner 5y ago
Majority among who? People in SF?
bradleyjg 5y ago
The majority sentiment in our large US cities, especially on the west coast, seems to be that tens of millions of people ought to have significantly reduced quality of life rather than thousands of people have their freedom curtailed. Even if that freedom is being used in ways that are not only degrading quality of life for the tens of millions but not even creating especially great quality of life for the thousands. We’ve prioritized autonomy so much that we’ve ended up in a miserable equilibrium for all involved. The only things progressives have to offer is maybe if we spend just a few more tens of millions; maybe if we throw just a few hundred more well intentioned social workers, drug counselors, and psychologists--then those few thousands will choose a different path. Because obviously the universe is a just one and there’s never any tough tradeoffs to be made. If only everyone cared as much as we progressives (aka good people) wouldn’t life be so glorious?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- archagon 5y ago
  What is the “non-progressive” solution to homelessness? As far as I can tell, it’s “I don’t care where you stay, but it can’t be here,” which is obviously not an actual solution in a global sense.
  - bradleyjg 5y ago
    Institutionalization. I’m all in favor of nice institutions and every effort at rehabilitation but if you are in such a condition that you can’t go about your life without ruining those of everyone around you, then society is entitled to protect itself by removing you.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      No way that power will be abused, nosiree… I am also extremely dubious that there are anywhere near as many untreatable cases as people seem to think.
JamesBarney 5y ago
> The majority sentiment appears to be that homeless people deserve to suffer to some degree, and that without pain they’ll never be properly motivated to get a job and rejoin society. I don't think this is true at all. Citation is needed for this.
Kalium 5y ago
> The majority sentiment appears to be that homeless people deserve to suffer to some degree As far as I can tell, San Francisco doesn't seem to believe this. San Francisco does seem to collectively believe that adding housing is an abomination to avoided at all costs and that helping the homeless is a moral imperative.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

> No city has managed to solve the homelessness problem with anti-sleeping architecture and police crackdowns, but they’ll keep trying. That isn’t true, of course they’ve solved their problem using such measures…by pushing them to another city. For example, Bellevue WA will have the riot squad out pretty quickly if you so much as lay down on a bench, and it works since Seattle WA is right across the lake.

joshribakoff 5y ago

I don’t think homeless people should suffer but there should be rules. Instead of allowing people to ruin a sidewalk by storing 100 stolen bicycle scraps and other trash, they should be relocated to safe sleeping sites. Should tax payers have their view ruined, live in stench, and have HIV positive schizophrenic folks with an ax running into their place of business? My friend owns a business and had to stop selling merchandise due to theft. This literally happens daily here. The mayor doesn’t want to place some of these people in conservatorship which is what’s required at a certain point. (I’m aware I’ll be down voted by people who do not live here, haven’t had to call the cops for help themselves, and think I am just exaggerating)

noobermin 5y ago
Your comment seems to suggest you don't actually want the situation to get better, you want people to suffer for some reason. The point is the Finland solution actually works and that's why it should be done.
- joshribakoff 5y ago
  I literally stated I do not want them to suffer. I am not arguing against sleeping sites I clearly stated I am in favor of them I am just stating if someone refuses the safe sleeping sites and continues to break into yoga studios and throw feces and blood at people, maybe there ought to be a backup “solution”. Why does homelessness become an excuse to commit crimes? We can both help homeless people and also not make them immune to laws. Why should my neighbor who is wheelchair bound have no access to her sidewalk because a homeless guy is storing 100 stolen bicycle wheels on the sidewalk? I specifically want more safe sleeping sites, but I also want people arrested if they refuse the safe sleeping site and choose to be a menace to a society.
- gordian-mind 5y ago
  Very cool application of the "Principle of charity".
  - noobermin 5y ago
    May be I can clarify, when I said, "it suggests..." I probably should have said that if you follow the logic all the way through, they don't want to actually solve the issue. Who cares about how you feel? Do you want to solve homelessness or do you not? What other alternative is there?

bequanna 5y ago

I don’t think the sentiment is that they “deserve to suffer” so much as “why should I be subsidizing the comfort of a group that is so aggressively antisocial?”. I think it is fair to categorize the majority of interactions the public has with the homeless as negative. With most falling somewhere between simple harassment (aggressive panhandling) and serious crime (mugging, assault, property damage, etc). Of course, this is a huge generalization and #notallhomeless blah blah blah… But I think even those that advocate for homeless would have a tough time arguing that they increase the quality of life in the neighborhoods they inhabit.

noobermin 5y ago
If you agree homelessness is an issue than the right attitude to have is to reduce it no? The Finland solution actually works, so do it regardless of how you feel about it? Anything short of that means you actually don't want it to get better.
- bequanna 5y ago
  I’ll go back to what I noted in my original comment: “why should I subsidize the comfort of people who are so aggressively antisocial?” This group has generated so much negative goodwill with the general public that any “logical” solution that requires public $ is going to have a difficult time prevailing. The easiest and intuitively cheapest solution in the minds of most people is: make them go somewhere else.
  - noobermin 5y ago
    My point is you subsidize them or the issue is not fixed and the issue persists including the aspects you don't like. Making them go somewhere else doesn't work because somewhere else will make them go back to you. I get that it's not popular with the public, that's why we have these debates, because the public needs to figure out whether it really wants to solve the issue by partially getting over itself or it doesn't and prefers to live in the bad situation that current exists. EDIT: usually these arguments from the progressives appeals to morality or whatever, but in this case, it's literally an effectiveness argument. It works, regardless how one feels so it should be done. Now, if one argues "well, it might not work here," that to me is a more interesting and worthwhile discussion. But if one's point is "well, I don't dispute whether it works or not or whether it won't work here, I just hate the homeless so much I don't want to do the thing that would actually fix it," leads me to question whether one hates it enough to actually address the issue or not.

rayiner 5y ago

Majority among who? People in SF?

bradleyjg 5y ago

The majority sentiment in our large US cities, especially on the west coast, seems to be that tens of millions of people ought to have significantly reduced quality of life rather than thousands of people have their freedom curtailed. Even if that freedom is being used in ways that are not only degrading quality of life for the tens of millions but not even creating especially great quality of life for the thousands. We’ve prioritized autonomy so much that we’ve ended up in a miserable equilibrium for all involved. The only things progressives have to offer is maybe if we spend just a few more tens of millions; maybe if we throw just a few hundred more well intentioned social workers, drug counselors, and psychologists--then those few thousands will choose a different path. Because obviously the universe is a just one and there’s never any tough tradeoffs to be made. If only everyone cared as much as we progressives (aka good people) wouldn’t life be so glorious?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
archagon 5y ago
What is the “non-progressive” solution to homelessness? As far as I can tell, it’s “I don’t care where you stay, but it can’t be here,” which is obviously not an actual solution in a global sense.
- bradleyjg 5y ago
  Institutionalization. I’m all in favor of nice institutions and every effort at rehabilitation but if you are in such a condition that you can’t go about your life without ruining those of everyone around you, then society is entitled to protect itself by removing you.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    No way that power will be abused, nosiree… I am also extremely dubious that there are anywhere near as many untreatable cases as people seem to think.

JamesBarney 5y ago

> The majority sentiment appears to be that homeless people deserve to suffer to some degree, and that without pain they’ll never be properly motivated to get a job and rejoin society. I don't think this is true at all. Citation is needed for this.

Kalium 5y ago

> The majority sentiment appears to be that homeless people deserve to suffer to some degree As far as I can tell, San Francisco doesn't seem to believe this. San Francisco does seem to collectively believe that adding housing is an abomination to avoided at all costs and that helping the homeless is a moral imperative.