4 ms·

I mean, San Francisco has always taken a more principled position on defining the boundaries of freedom and civil rights. It wasn’t so long ago that homosexuali

by trevyn 5y ago

I mean, San Francisco has always taken a more principled position on defining the boundaries of freedom and civil rights. It wasn’t so long ago that homosexuality was considered antisocial, could be “treated” in an institution, and was considered offensive to see in public.

rsj_hn 5y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "more principled". Everyone has to have some principles. SF is neither more nor less principled now than before. It just cares about different things. Go defecate on a Black Lives Matter street sign and you can be sure to be hauled away and arrested. Chesa Boudin will even prosecute you. Defecate in a public park in front of schoolchildren and people just look away and keep walking. SF has not gotten less principled, it just stopped being willing to defend public parks and city streets and instead chose to defend other things. And the same people who insist we must allow millions of used needles in our parks are the ones claiming that "speech is violence". They are willing to fight to make sure that an offensive thing isn't said on twitter, but they're not willing to fight to make sure that children can play in the park without stepping on a used needle. But in order to have civil society, you do need to defend it from antisocial people. There are always going to be antisocial people. And there are always going to be red lines that the community does not allow to be crossed. That red line could be wearing a MAGA hat in the SF community college, or it could be dying on the streets of the Tenderloin. The principles are enforced with the same strictness as 100 years ago, except that the principles themselves changed. SF tolerates one but not the other, and gets the streets and parks that it deserves.
- klyrs 5y ago
  > Go defecate on a Black Lives Matter street sign and you can be sure to be hauled away and arrested. Chesa Boudin will even prosecute you. This sounds like you're referencing something very specific, but I haven't been able to find anything credible about such an event. Got a link?
- trevyn 5y ago
  It’s defending the civil and human rights of mentally disabled and addicted people. I agree that it’s a messy, unstated process, and I understand that some may prioritize clean parks over human rights.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    Oh come on. The person defecating on the Black Lives Matter sign also has human rights, and San Francisco does not prioritize them at all. If someone were to wear a MAGA hat in SF Community College, how many seconds before they would be assaulted by private violence. And nothing would happen to the perpetrator -- instead the person wearing the hat would be charged. Stop pretending that this is about respecting human rights. It's about enforcing social norms. Which is OK. Except that you have to choose those social norms carefully, because they will determine the type of community you have. The fact is that dying on the streets of the tenderloin no longer violates social norms in the same way as, say, saying the N word in public. So again, you get the city you deserve -- one in which no one wears a MAGA hat, but homeless people screaming at strangers are a part of daily life. At least have the integrity to admit that these are choices as to which norms you will enforce, and stop pretending that you just allow anyone to do whatever they want because of some fundamentalist adherence to free speech or free association.
    - trevyn 5y ago
      It can be both, no? A deep, long-term cultural commitment to anti-violence and tolerance, but succumb to violence and intolerance oneself when threatened. Unfortunately the threats have been coming hard and fast lately, making it a bit of a social norm, as you say. But the principles of tolerance are still there, the whole thing just hasn’t been reconciled yet.
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    Defending the civil and human rights of mentally disabled and addicted people does not require that you permit them to defecate in public, take drugs in public, harangue and harass passersby, aggressively panhandle, and engage in theft. In fact, I would argue that creating an environment in which this is permitted does a disservice to not just the local community, but to these people as well.

by trevyn 5y ago

rsj_hn 5y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "more principled". Everyone has to have some principles. SF is neither more nor less principled now than before. It just cares about different things. Go defecate on a Black Lives Matter street sign and you can be sure to be hauled away and arrested. Chesa Boudin will even prosecute you. Defecate in a public park in front of schoolchildren and people just look away and keep walking. SF has not gotten less principled, it just stopped being willing to defend public parks and city streets and instead chose to defend other things. And the same people who insist we must allow millions of used needles in our parks are the ones claiming that "speech is violence". They are willing to fight to make sure that an offensive thing isn't said on twitter, but they're not willing to fight to make sure that children can play in the park without stepping on a used needle. But in order to have civil society, you do need to defend it from antisocial people. There are always going to be antisocial people. And there are always going to be red lines that the community does not allow to be crossed. That red line could be wearing a MAGA hat in the SF community college, or it could be dying on the streets of the Tenderloin. The principles are enforced with the same strictness as 100 years ago, except that the principles themselves changed. SF tolerates one but not the other, and gets the streets and parks that it deserves.

klyrs 5y ago
> Go defecate on a Black Lives Matter street sign and you can be sure to be hauled away and arrested. Chesa Boudin will even prosecute you. This sounds like you're referencing something very specific, but I haven't been able to find anything credible about such an event. Got a link?
trevyn 5y ago
It’s defending the civil and human rights of mentally disabled and addicted people. I agree that it’s a messy, unstated process, and I understand that some may prioritize clean parks over human rights.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Oh come on. The person defecating on the Black Lives Matter sign also has human rights, and San Francisco does not prioritize them at all. If someone were to wear a MAGA hat in SF Community College, how many seconds before they would be assaulted by private violence. And nothing would happen to the perpetrator -- instead the person wearing the hat would be charged. Stop pretending that this is about respecting human rights. It's about enforcing social norms. Which is OK. Except that you have to choose those social norms carefully, because they will determine the type of community you have. The fact is that dying on the streets of the tenderloin no longer violates social norms in the same way as, say, saying the N word in public. So again, you get the city you deserve -- one in which no one wears a MAGA hat, but homeless people screaming at strangers are a part of daily life. At least have the integrity to admit that these are choices as to which norms you will enforce, and stop pretending that you just allow anyone to do whatever they want because of some fundamentalist adherence to free speech or free association.
  - trevyn 5y ago
    It can be both, no? A deep, long-term cultural commitment to anti-violence and tolerance, but succumb to violence and intolerance oneself when threatened. Unfortunately the threats have been coming hard and fast lately, making it a bit of a social norm, as you say. But the principles of tolerance are still there, the whole thing just hasn’t been reconciled yet.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  Defending the civil and human rights of mentally disabled and addicted people does not require that you permit them to defecate in public, take drugs in public, harangue and harass passersby, aggressively panhandle, and engage in theft. In fact, I would argue that creating an environment in which this is permitted does a disservice to not just the local community, but to these people as well.