4 ms·

> So you’re saying his own experiences should be dismissed because he didn’t gather information through “official” channels? That's a rather disingenuous take.

by nuerow 5y ago

> So you’re saying his own experiences should be dismissed because he didn’t gather information through “official” channels? That's a rather disingenuous take. Isn't it plausible that taking anecdotal evidence at face value doesn't actually add insight to not only the root causes but also the prevalence of some of it's different categories? I mean, spending a week living in a tent isn't exactly a way to gather proper statistics on the issue, not to mention the likelihood that the observer might be biased to begin with.

refurb 5y ago
No it's not a disingenuous take. I read the article. You have a politician who actually goes and talks to a group of homeless - which is more than 99% would ever do - then come back with his observations. Sure, you can say "that doesn't represent all homeless", but I don't think the mayor was saying that. Here is a direct quote: "We can clearly do more to help people and move them on to stable housing," Coffman said. "What isn’t working is spending more money on it without changing behaviors. People are never going to [move] forward with their lives. You don’t want to be in a situation with public policy where you’re enabling really bad, destructive behavior." What is so terrible about those conclusions? And the gatekeeping by homeless advocates is really stark in that article. Their attitude is literally "You want to know about homelessness, you talk to me, don't go out there talking to these people on your own". How in the hell is that anything close to a reasonable take?
- nuerow 5y ago
  > No it's not a disingenuous take. I read the article. You have a politician who actually goes and talks to a group of homeless (...) Sorry, it actually is. You have a guy who decided to live in a tent for a week as a publicity stunt, and that is supposed to make him an insightful expert on the nature and causes of the problem, in total contrast with the observations and experience of every single person that ever did any serious work on homelessness? The "goes and talks to a group of homeless" take sounds an awful lot like an attempt to go on the confirmation bias path, intended to fabricate a justification to continue to not address the root causes, than an honest and objective approach to understand issues.
  - DiggyJohnson 5y ago
    I’ll bite, but I think you ought to know that I cannot so far understand you’re reasoning. Who, then, is qualified to speak on these issues? Is only aggregate data through official channels, and not individual experience, relevant to the discussion?
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      It seems to me that homelessness is a desired state by the far-left progressives. I don't get the sense from talking to people here in Berkeley/Oakland that they want to eradicate homelessness. If you offer a few discussion points about possible solutions, you get sneered at and shot down. The arguments are weak and don't hold up, so they are varnished with emotional appeal (be kind to homeless) and other soft-tactics of altruism. I disagree with this whole premise. You can still be kind and try to solve homelessness and clean up our streets. There is nothing wrong with that and infact the only right thing to do. Like every city in the world. No one should be afraid of calling homelessness a problem that we want to get rid of. Methods of doing that can be debated but resist the appeal for this so called wokeness that is endemic in places like Universities.
      - swearwolf 5y ago
        Desired state seems like a stretch, but the cynical part of me does wonder sometimes whether having visible homelessness around is seen as inevitable proof that the capitalist system is irredeemable and must be replaced. A more likely explanation is the way that paternalistic administration of care is anathema to the current way of thinking. That is to say that one should never presuppose how to solve someone else’s problems, but rather one should listen to their lived experiences and give them what they say they need to solve their own problems. This is a good principle to follow in most situations, but like all prescriptive outlooks it fails when exposed to certain edge cases. In this case, the edge case is people who lack the executive function to know how to better their situation, or even to take advantage of situations that will when they’re presented.
        5y ago
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  > And the gatekeeping by homeless advocates is really stark in that article. That's because if you actually solved (or even reduced) homelessness, those people might be out of a job.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Would it matter to be out of their job if homelessness would be solved? At least they wouldn't be homeless as a result of job loss.
user_named 5y ago
A week of lived experience is qualia, information which can never be captured through statistics. It is definitely useful.
Aloha 5y ago
I have my own experiences interacting with the homeless in seattle. They're a bunch of overlapping groups. Around 1/4 are short term homeless, just folks at the margins of society who fell off the page, and now cannot make ends meet. Alot of these folks do find their way off the streets of their own, but this is the group that we need to most urgently help. Around 1/2 are long term chronic homeless, often they were just short term homeless folks, but now have fallen into the trap of the homelessness. They want out, but cant figure out how to navigate their way there. Around 1/4 are willingly homeless, as in they do not want help. And of those who are homeless, they seem to have the same common problems: Around 1/3rd do have some measure of substance abuse issues (more prevalent in long term chronic homeless). Around 1/3rd have moderate issues with excessive alcohol consumption (more prevalent in long term chronic homeless). Another 1/2 have untreated mental health issues of some sort (seen in all groups). The most common reasons the interventions for homelessness seem to fail: 1. Requires giving up too much personal freedom/dignity - can't come and go as you please/its treated as a pseudo-probation, have to go listen to a preacher, cant bring your pet (usually a dog). 2. too many prerequisites/hurdles to get help (must be sober/clean, must have kids/not have kids. 3. shelters feel less safe than being on the street (your stuff gets stolen, you'll get gay bashed). 4. requires you to give up too much of your SSI or other benefits to get it. 5. long waiting periods for help or not enough bed slots. It's why I believe in a housing-first approach, housing without hurdles or prerequisites, its much easier to provide services to a sedentary population than it is a mobile one with no fixed address. I think the case that every homeless person is a drug addict is wildly overstated, but I think the solution that SF and Seattle is doing wildly ineffective in actually solving homelessness, if anything, it makes the problem worse, while also reducing quality of life for folks who do have homes and live there.
- graderjs 5y ago
  I have been reading some of your back comments prompted by your comment about organization policy on my white house fire story and I think you should write blog posts it's clear you think really deeply about things I think you have a lot of interesting stuff to contribute. And you've had an interesting intersection of experiences and combine that with your good analysis and insights often seemingly to me not obvious, and your easy to read writing style, I think you'd make a really good sort of writer that people would love to read about all kinds of tricky issues so I hope you take up blog posting and share here!

by nuerow 5y ago

refurb 5y ago

No it's not a disingenuous take. I read the article. You have a politician who actually goes and talks to a group of homeless - which is more than 99% would ever do - then come back with his observations. Sure, you can say "that doesn't represent all homeless", but I don't think the mayor was saying that. Here is a direct quote: "We can clearly do more to help people and move them on to stable housing," Coffman said. "What isn’t working is spending more money on it without changing behaviors. People are never going to [move] forward with their lives. You don’t want to be in a situation with public policy where you’re enabling really bad, destructive behavior." What is so terrible about those conclusions? And the gatekeeping by homeless advocates is really stark in that article. Their attitude is literally "You want to know about homelessness, you talk to me, don't go out there talking to these people on your own". How in the hell is that anything close to a reasonable take?

nuerow 5y ago
> No it's not a disingenuous take. I read the article. You have a politician who actually goes and talks to a group of homeless (...) Sorry, it actually is. You have a guy who decided to live in a tent for a week as a publicity stunt, and that is supposed to make him an insightful expert on the nature and causes of the problem, in total contrast with the observations and experience of every single person that ever did any serious work on homelessness? The "goes and talks to a group of homeless" take sounds an awful lot like an attempt to go on the confirmation bias path, intended to fabricate a justification to continue to not address the root causes, than an honest and objective approach to understand issues.
- DiggyJohnson 5y ago
  I’ll bite, but I think you ought to know that I cannot so far understand you’re reasoning. Who, then, is qualified to speak on these issues? Is only aggregate data through official channels, and not individual experience, relevant to the discussion?
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    It seems to me that homelessness is a desired state by the far-left progressives. I don't get the sense from talking to people here in Berkeley/Oakland that they want to eradicate homelessness. If you offer a few discussion points about possible solutions, you get sneered at and shot down. The arguments are weak and don't hold up, so they are varnished with emotional appeal (be kind to homeless) and other soft-tactics of altruism. I disagree with this whole premise. You can still be kind and try to solve homelessness and clean up our streets. There is nothing wrong with that and infact the only right thing to do. Like every city in the world. No one should be afraid of calling homelessness a problem that we want to get rid of. Methods of doing that can be debated but resist the appeal for this so called wokeness that is endemic in places like Universities.
    - swearwolf 5y ago
      Desired state seems like a stretch, but the cynical part of me does wonder sometimes whether having visible homelessness around is seen as inevitable proof that the capitalist system is irredeemable and must be replaced. A more likely explanation is the way that paternalistic administration of care is anathema to the current way of thinking. That is to say that one should never presuppose how to solve someone else’s problems, but rather one should listen to their lived experiences and give them what they say they need to solve their own problems. This is a good principle to follow in most situations, but like all prescriptive outlooks it fails when exposed to certain edge cases. In this case, the edge case is people who lack the executive function to know how to better their situation, or even to take advantage of situations that will when they’re presented.
      - 5y ago
throwawayboise 5y ago
> And the gatekeeping by homeless advocates is really stark in that article. That's because if you actually solved (or even reduced) homelessness, those people might be out of a job.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Would it matter to be out of their job if homelessness would be solved? At least they wouldn't be homeless as a result of job loss.

user_named 5y ago

A week of lived experience is qualia, information which can never be captured through statistics. It is definitely useful.

Aloha 5y ago

I have my own experiences interacting with the homeless in seattle. They're a bunch of overlapping groups. Around 1/4 are short term homeless, just folks at the margins of society who fell off the page, and now cannot make ends meet. Alot of these folks do find their way off the streets of their own, but this is the group that we need to most urgently help. Around 1/2 are long term chronic homeless, often they were just short term homeless folks, but now have fallen into the trap of the homelessness. They want out, but cant figure out how to navigate their way there. Around 1/4 are willingly homeless, as in they do not want help. And of those who are homeless, they seem to have the same common problems: Around 1/3rd do have some measure of substance abuse issues (more prevalent in long term chronic homeless). Around 1/3rd have moderate issues with excessive alcohol consumption (more prevalent in long term chronic homeless). Another 1/2 have untreated mental health issues of some sort (seen in all groups). The most common reasons the interventions for homelessness seem to fail: 1. Requires giving up too much personal freedom/dignity - can't come and go as you please/its treated as a pseudo-probation, have to go listen to a preacher, cant bring your pet (usually a dog). 2. too many prerequisites/hurdles to get help (must be sober/clean, must have kids/not have kids. 3. shelters feel less safe than being on the street (your stuff gets stolen, you'll get gay bashed). 4. requires you to give up too much of your SSI or other benefits to get it. 5. long waiting periods for help or not enough bed slots. It's why I believe in a housing-first approach, housing without hurdles or prerequisites, its much easier to provide services to a sedentary population than it is a mobile one with no fixed address. I think the case that every homeless person is a drug addict is wildly overstated, but I think the solution that SF and Seattle is doing wildly ineffective in actually solving homelessness, if anything, it makes the problem worse, while also reducing quality of life for folks who do have homes and live there.

graderjs 5y ago
I have been reading some of your back comments prompted by your comment about organization policy on my white house fire story and I think you should write blog posts it's clear you think really deeply about things I think you have a lot of interesting stuff to contribute. And you've had an interesting intersection of experiences and combine that with your good analysis and insights often seemingly to me not obvious, and your easy to read writing style, I think you'd make a really good sort of writer that people would love to read about all kinds of tricky issues so I hope you take up blog posting and share here!