3 ms·

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

by 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.
- trevyn 5y ago
  I disagree with your opinion, and I’m proud that SF is performing the experiment, even if unintentionally. Yes, there is a line, but my opinion is that it’s closer to physical violence against another person’s body. A possibly more interesting question: In what ways has the line been shifting over time, in what places, and why? What benefits have been reaped from increasing permissiveness, and why? What areas of the world are low-permissiveness, and what problems do they see as a result? Is all of this coincident or causal to innovation, and why? Why does this topic impassion people? Is clear thinking hindered by passion, and why?

by trevyn 5y ago

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.

trevyn 5y ago
I disagree with your opinion, and I’m proud that SF is performing the experiment, even if unintentionally. Yes, there is a line, but my opinion is that it’s closer to physical violence against another person’s body. A possibly more interesting question: In what ways has the line been shifting over time, in what places, and why? What benefits have been reaped from increasing permissiveness, and why? What areas of the world are low-permissiveness, and what problems do they see as a result? Is all of this coincident or causal to innovation, and why? Why does this topic impassion people? Is clear thinking hindered by passion, and why?