5 ms·

> Who, then, is qualified to speak on these issues? For starters, can we agree that a publicity stunt like spending a week in a tent as a live action roleplay

by nuerow 5y ago

> Who, then, is qualified to speak on these issues? For starters, can we agree that a publicity stunt like spending a week in a tent as a live action roleplay is no way to get any insight on a deep-rooted social and economic problem? Specially given the clear preexisting bias and political motivation to ignore the problem, avoid accountability, and continue doing absolutely nothing? > Is only aggregate data through official channels, and not individual experience, relevant to the discussion? I am really perplexed by the insistence of this take. I mean, aren't these "official channels" actually people paid by him to work for him full time on this issue? How terribly disfuncional and incompetent is a whole local government, led by this mayor, supposed to be if he feels the need to waste a week's worth of his personal time to do something himself when no one in his own organization, not a single person, is able to reliably gather any info or insight onto the problem? I mean, in other issues we see the executives of local governments appointing people to actually fix the problem with clear goals in mind, and hold them accountable for the outcome. But no. I this case we're only seeing a former senator turned mayor somehow arriving at the conclusion that homeless people are all drug addicts and/or suffering from mental health problems. From that starting point, the solution is, surprisingly, to go with the same political tropes of using the police to brush the problem under the rug by banning all the undesidables to get them out of sight. https://www.denverpost.com/2021/05/18/aurora-homelessness-camping-ban-coffman/ https://www.denverpost.com/2021/05/18/aurora-homelessness-ca...

refurb 5y ago
So you’re saying any attempt by a politician to go and talk to homeless people in person - not to get to the root of the cause, but just to listen to them and observe - should be avoided as it’s just a publicity stunt? And what do you mean “ignore the problem”? I directly quoted his conclusion which included “we should do more to house them”. Can you point to a conclusion of his where he actively sought to ignore the problem? I’m struggling to wrap my head around your rationale. If the situation were different - let’s say a lack of childcare options - would you also tell politicians not to talk directly to parents looking for childcare? Only talk to advocacy organizations because such a “stunt” doesn’t get to the “deep seated social issues at hand”? And what do you mean “waste a week”? Since when is having leaders directly engage people a problem? What angle are you coming at this from? I’m trying to understand your motivations when you’re actively rejecting efforts to find solutions.
- admash 5y ago
  I believe he is trying to say that 1) drawing conclusions from the one-time observations of a single individual is unlikely to be accurately representative of the actual situation, and is at great risk of all sorts of selection, recall, and confirmation biases. 2) in that context, ignoring all the other managerial responsibilities of a mayoral position so you can engage in a relatively non-scientific attempt at information gathering when you have people you can consult who are experts on the topic and have spent years studying and collecting data, is quite rightly a poor use of time.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    All of those biases are also applicable to experts. We hope they are less biased, but they can never be bias free and there are certainly cases where experts have been egregiously biased, often is very subtle ways, that have led policy grievously astray. Like when the USDA pushed the country away from fats and toward processed sugar
- camgunz 5y ago
  I think you two might be talking past each other here. There's nothing wrong with a politician (i.e. an elected leader) getting first hand experience with an issue. Many leaders do this all the time and get depressingly little press for it--and others do it purely for a PR win unmindful of the cynicism they're generating. I think this mayor was sincere in his intent, and also I think it's a good habit to assume positive intent (to be super corporate about it). What I think people are taking issue with is the Mayor's seeming dismissal of some homeless as irredeemable, and his failure to acknowledge that homelessness is more than an issue of mental illness, substance abuse, and personal responsibility. That plays into the common stereotype of unhomed people, and as many pointed out, that makes the problem worse because it justifies doing little to solve the problem. So while I believe the Mayor's intent was good, I also think he was misguided and a little arrogant. I'd be pretty peeved if my non-technical boss did a coding boot camp and came back all "huh I did that camp and I was right, your job isn't hard at all!" It's also worth saying you don't need to go urban camping for a week to figure out how to solve homelessness. It's probably more effective to just go to endhomelessness.org.
rajup 5y ago
You characterize it as a publicity stunt which is a dismissive way to put it, and then go on to say since in your opinion it was a publicity stunt none of what he says really matters. Not sure I agree with that.
lodovic 5y ago
I think you are simplifying things. Try to live in a tent in a homeless camp for a week and I promise you will have more insight into all the dynamics there than any outside observer will ever have.
DiggyJohnson 5y ago
> For starters, can we agree that a publicity stunt like spending a week in a tent as a live action roleplay is no way to get any insight on a deep-rooted social and economic problem? Specially given the clear preexisting bias and political motivation to ignore the problem, avoid accountability, and continue doing absolutely nothing? No, we cannot agree on this. I don't understand how this is walking the walk, and not just talking the talk. If the mayor went on to make grandoise claims about homelessness that were unreasonable, I would start to agree, but I don't see that happening here. > But no. I this case we're only seeing a former senator turned mayor somehow arriving at the conclusion that homeless people are all drug addicts and/or suffering from mental health problems. This is strawmanning the mayor's point. He is claiming that we are not addressing the root cause of homelessness. He's not saying "homeless people are all drug addicts." Those are your words.

by nuerow 5y ago

refurb 5y ago

So you’re saying any attempt by a politician to go and talk to homeless people in person - not to get to the root of the cause, but just to listen to them and observe - should be avoided as it’s just a publicity stunt? And what do you mean “ignore the problem”? I directly quoted his conclusion which included “we should do more to house them”. Can you point to a conclusion of his where he actively sought to ignore the problem? I’m struggling to wrap my head around your rationale. If the situation were different - let’s say a lack of childcare options - would you also tell politicians not to talk directly to parents looking for childcare? Only talk to advocacy organizations because such a “stunt” doesn’t get to the “deep seated social issues at hand”? And what do you mean “waste a week”? Since when is having leaders directly engage people a problem? What angle are you coming at this from? I’m trying to understand your motivations when you’re actively rejecting efforts to find solutions.

admash 5y ago
I believe he is trying to say that 1) drawing conclusions from the one-time observations of a single individual is unlikely to be accurately representative of the actual situation, and is at great risk of all sorts of selection, recall, and confirmation biases. 2) in that context, ignoring all the other managerial responsibilities of a mayoral position so you can engage in a relatively non-scientific attempt at information gathering when you have people you can consult who are experts on the topic and have spent years studying and collecting data, is quite rightly a poor use of time.
- dnautics 5y ago
  All of those biases are also applicable to experts. We hope they are less biased, but they can never be bias free and there are certainly cases where experts have been egregiously biased, often is very subtle ways, that have led policy grievously astray. Like when the USDA pushed the country away from fats and toward processed sugar
camgunz 5y ago
I think you two might be talking past each other here. There's nothing wrong with a politician (i.e. an elected leader) getting first hand experience with an issue. Many leaders do this all the time and get depressingly little press for it--and others do it purely for a PR win unmindful of the cynicism they're generating. I think this mayor was sincere in his intent, and also I think it's a good habit to assume positive intent (to be super corporate about it). What I think people are taking issue with is the Mayor's seeming dismissal of some homeless as irredeemable, and his failure to acknowledge that homelessness is more than an issue of mental illness, substance abuse, and personal responsibility. That plays into the common stereotype of unhomed people, and as many pointed out, that makes the problem worse because it justifies doing little to solve the problem. So while I believe the Mayor's intent was good, I also think he was misguided and a little arrogant. I'd be pretty peeved if my non-technical boss did a coding boot camp and came back all "huh I did that camp and I was right, your job isn't hard at all!" It's also worth saying you don't need to go urban camping for a week to figure out how to solve homelessness. It's probably more effective to just go to endhomelessness.org.

rajup 5y ago

You characterize it as a publicity stunt which is a dismissive way to put it, and then go on to say since in your opinion it was a publicity stunt none of what he says really matters. Not sure I agree with that.

lodovic 5y ago

I think you are simplifying things. Try to live in a tent in a homeless camp for a week and I promise you will have more insight into all the dynamics there than any outside observer will ever have.

DiggyJohnson 5y ago

> For starters, can we agree that a publicity stunt like spending a week in a tent as a live action roleplay is no way to get any insight on a deep-rooted social and economic problem? Specially given the clear preexisting bias and political motivation to ignore the problem, avoid accountability, and continue doing absolutely nothing? No, we cannot agree on this. I don't understand how this is walking the walk, and not just talking the talk. If the mayor went on to make grandoise claims about homelessness that were unreasonable, I would start to agree, but I don't see that happening here. > But no. I this case we're only seeing a former senator turned mayor somehow arriving at the conclusion that homeless people are all drug addicts and/or suffering from mental health problems. This is strawmanning the mayor's point. He is claiming that we are not addressing the root cause of homelessness. He's not saying "homeless people are all drug addicts." Those are your words.