4 ms·

> Give mentally ill people the choice of dignity and they will overwhelmingly choose it. The one's flashing their genitals and screaming at strangers? The def

> Give mentally ill people the choice of dignity and they will overwhelmingly choose it. The one's flashing their genitals and screaming at strangers? The definition of "mentally ill homeless" is surely nuanced and varied, by this archetype is certainly what a lot of people are going to think of when they hear the term. It's hard for me to imagine degradation is relevant to them.

woodruffw 5y ago
Emphasis on "overwhelmingly." One of the most pernicious problems in homeless advocacy is that the average person only remembers their worst encounters with mentally ill homeless people, not the tens of thousands of people who they've silently passed on the street.
- dymk 5y ago
  that’s because there’s two different types of homelessness, and people are intent on conflating the two
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  That feels intentionally misleading though. If I ask you about the severely mentally unwell, and you refer to a guy with heavy depression while there's observable examples of people in literal states of lunacy, you may be technically correct, but obviously you will be misunderstood. These aren't the "severely mentally ill" that the comment intended imo.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Where do you feel intentionally misled? The overwhelming majority of homeless people are not raving lunatics.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      Where you responded to a claim that a lot of people are severely mentally ill and you said it was a matter of their dignity. The people with any amount of thought delegated to dignity are not the part of the severely mentally ill being asked about.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        I'm not following. Here's the claim, as I interpreted it: "Many homeless people do not want shelter because they are mentally ill." Here's how I responded: first, there just aren't that many mentally unwell homeless people in the "naked and screaming" sense. Second, that those who are mentally unwell, to whatever degree, do not accept forms of shelter not because of that illness but because those forms of shelter are, by normal standards, extremely degrading. We would never dream of asking someone who hasn't otherwise been dehumanized to willingly subject themselves to constant surveillance, a living space shared with desperate strangers, and the complete absence of any guarantees around the security of their private property. Put another way: being homeless doesn't make you lose your sense of dignity. Being mentally ill doesn't either, except in the worse cases. Treating the overwhelming majority like they're criminal timebombs is dehumanizing and just doesn't match the facts on the ground. So again: what's being missed here? I'm interested in the 99% case, which includes a very large number of mentally ill homeless people. I'm not engaging in the 1% case, because I think it's a frivolous diversion from the needs of a great many suffering people.
bee_rider 5y ago
I'm confused by your post. You appear to be aware that this caricature of a homeless person that you've invented is wrong, based on: > The definition of "mentally ill homeless" is surely nuanced and varied, but in the rest of the post you appear to be discussing this strawman as if it is the primary concern.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  It's not a caricature. These people are easy to find in many cities. They're not uncommon sights, even if they don't resemble the average homeless person. The question was about the "severely mentally ill". If the counterpoint is that it's rude to acknowledge the people who seem to be utterly insane, well I think that's kind of shit. If it's that these aren't the people we're referring to when we say "severely mentally ill", then I think that's just disingenuous.
  - tdeck 5y ago
    A person can be severely mentally ill in many ways, not all of them are highly public and immediately offensive to passers by. So while the people you describe would indeed fall into that category, many readers would likely place other people with debilitating mental illnesses into that category as well.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      That's true, but someone who is severely mentally ill in an invisible way is not going to be categorized as such by a passerby, so it's an obviously semantic ambiguity. Saying what is technically true but not understood is just distracting.
      - tdeck 5y ago
        That's not necessarily true either. Someone who is catatonic might be noticed by a passerby but doesn't scream "this person isn't safe to have in a shelter".

woodruffw 5y ago

Emphasis on "overwhelmingly." One of the most pernicious problems in homeless advocacy is that the average person only remembers their worst encounters with mentally ill homeless people, not the tens of thousands of people who they've silently passed on the street.

dymk 5y ago
that’s because there’s two different types of homelessness, and people are intent on conflating the two
spywaregorilla 5y ago
That feels intentionally misleading though. If I ask you about the severely mentally unwell, and you refer to a guy with heavy depression while there's observable examples of people in literal states of lunacy, you may be technically correct, but obviously you will be misunderstood. These aren't the "severely mentally ill" that the comment intended imo.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Where do you feel intentionally misled? The overwhelming majority of homeless people are not raving lunatics.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    Where you responded to a claim that a lot of people are severely mentally ill and you said it was a matter of their dignity. The people with any amount of thought delegated to dignity are not the part of the severely mentally ill being asked about.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      I'm not following. Here's the claim, as I interpreted it: "Many homeless people do not want shelter because they are mentally ill." Here's how I responded: first, there just aren't that many mentally unwell homeless people in the "naked and screaming" sense. Second, that those who are mentally unwell, to whatever degree, do not accept forms of shelter not because of that illness but because those forms of shelter are, by normal standards, extremely degrading. We would never dream of asking someone who hasn't otherwise been dehumanized to willingly subject themselves to constant surveillance, a living space shared with desperate strangers, and the complete absence of any guarantees around the security of their private property. Put another way: being homeless doesn't make you lose your sense of dignity. Being mentally ill doesn't either, except in the worse cases. Treating the overwhelming majority like they're criminal timebombs is dehumanizing and just doesn't match the facts on the ground. So again: what's being missed here? I'm interested in the 99% case, which includes a very large number of mentally ill homeless people. I'm not engaging in the 1% case, because I think it's a frivolous diversion from the needs of a great many suffering people.

bee_rider 5y ago

I'm confused by your post. You appear to be aware that this caricature of a homeless person that you've invented is wrong, based on: > The definition of "mentally ill homeless" is surely nuanced and varied, but in the rest of the post you appear to be discussing this strawman as if it is the primary concern.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
It's not a caricature. These people are easy to find in many cities. They're not uncommon sights, even if they don't resemble the average homeless person. The question was about the "severely mentally ill". If the counterpoint is that it's rude to acknowledge the people who seem to be utterly insane, well I think that's kind of shit. If it's that these aren't the people we're referring to when we say "severely mentally ill", then I think that's just disingenuous.
- tdeck 5y ago
  A person can be severely mentally ill in many ways, not all of them are highly public and immediately offensive to passers by. So while the people you describe would indeed fall into that category, many readers would likely place other people with debilitating mental illnesses into that category as well.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    That's true, but someone who is severely mentally ill in an invisible way is not going to be categorized as such by a passerby, so it's an obviously semantic ambiguity. Saying what is technically true but not understood is just distracting.
    - tdeck 5y ago
      That's not necessarily true either. Someone who is catatonic might be noticed by a passerby but doesn't scream "this person isn't safe to have in a shelter".