4 ms·

"Actions speak louder than words," as an adage I think applies here. "Words are cheap," is another one. >you don’t say “a homeless person”; you say “someone ex

"Actions speak louder than words," as an adage I think applies here. "Words are cheap," is another one. >you don’t say “a homeless person”; you say “someone experiencing homelessness” This is San Francisco's version of "thoughts and prayers." I suppose it would be better for overall humanity if we still called them "bums," but actually did something to help them.

danso 4y ago
Changing nomenclature is not at all enough toward actual aid and a solution, but it's not contrary to those ends either — i.e. I don't foresee a situation in which city politicians call the homeless "bums" while actually allocating adequate resources to helping them.
newsclues 4y ago
If we judge people (especially those in or running for government) by what they do rather than what they say. Given the results of SF, the actions say, “fuck poor people” while the words are the opposite.
- MAGZine 4y ago
  The poor people were basically not punished for crimes and allowed to pitch tents wherever they pleased. Also free housing if they wanted, so long as they didn't use drugs. Rehab if they wanted it. What part of that seems inhumane?
  - newsclues 4y ago
    The part where society didn’t build enough affordable housing so there was an option other than jail or living on the streets.
- rhino369 4y ago
  The issue is the actions don't achieve the intended results. It's really hard to convince people the policies they believe in just don't work.
  - newsclues 4y ago
    If people believe in thinks despite data that proves those things are wrong (Marxists), ignore them and move on. You can’t placate mentally ill people at the expense of society at large
mkmk3 4y ago
Is this getting downvoted because of the harsh tone of it or what? I think it's a nice comment on parents observation
- MAGZine 4y ago
  Because it implies a cut and dried solution, which does not exist. It's implies sf wants to care, but is too busy virtue signaling to do anything about it. Like as if the city doesn't want to put it's money where it's mouth is. Instead, sf has one of the most well funded social networks in the country. And they tried to take an innovative approach on policing, one that would not disportionately target poor people or people of a certain race. The remaining solutions are essentially to forcibly remove people from the streets, and revert to the standard American policing playbook. At least, those are the tools traditionally used to clean up these problems in other parts of the country. So, it's a comment that sounds nice but isn't actually true. Sf was taking actions. And now, as of last night, the citizenry are also taking action (by recalling the DA)
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > solutions are essentially to forcibly remove people from the streets Solution is to build more housing. This, however, cuts against two powerful San Francisco voting blocs, and the source of its problems: homeowners and entrenched subsidized renters.
    - MAGZine 4y ago
      This is probably a correct take but not really immediately actionable. It's up the the residents of the city to decide they want to change their neighborhoods. And most new construction ends up market rate which takes a while to free up housing supply for the affected group (which is at the bottom of the market.) I'm a yimby fwiw, but as new york has shown you can have both density and an affordability issue—density isn't a a cure-all. And what's perhaps most annoying is that certain minority activist groups also actively block new development. The mission hasn't been developed much, but it's not for lack of trying.
    - 4y ago
zbrozek 4y ago
It's also just bad English. It's both more verbose and less precise than what it replaces. If I walk down the street in SF, I've experienced homelessness. But I'm not necessarily homeless. Unfortunately the same people who will chastise you about your insensitive language will also vote down every housing project.

danso 4y ago

Changing nomenclature is not at all enough toward actual aid and a solution, but it's not contrary to those ends either — i.e. I don't foresee a situation in which city politicians call the homeless "bums" while actually allocating adequate resources to helping them.

newsclues 4y ago

If we judge people (especially those in or running for government) by what they do rather than what they say. Given the results of SF, the actions say, “fuck poor people” while the words are the opposite.

MAGZine 4y ago
The poor people were basically not punished for crimes and allowed to pitch tents wherever they pleased. Also free housing if they wanted, so long as they didn't use drugs. Rehab if they wanted it. What part of that seems inhumane?
- newsclues 4y ago
  The part where society didn’t build enough affordable housing so there was an option other than jail or living on the streets.
rhino369 4y ago
The issue is the actions don't achieve the intended results. It's really hard to convince people the policies they believe in just don't work.
- newsclues 4y ago
  If people believe in thinks despite data that proves those things are wrong (Marxists), ignore them and move on. You can’t placate mentally ill people at the expense of society at large

mkmk3 4y ago

Is this getting downvoted because of the harsh tone of it or what? I think it's a nice comment on parents observation

MAGZine 4y ago
Because it implies a cut and dried solution, which does not exist. It's implies sf wants to care, but is too busy virtue signaling to do anything about it. Like as if the city doesn't want to put it's money where it's mouth is. Instead, sf has one of the most well funded social networks in the country. And they tried to take an innovative approach on policing, one that would not disportionately target poor people or people of a certain race. The remaining solutions are essentially to forcibly remove people from the streets, and revert to the standard American policing playbook. At least, those are the tools traditionally used to clean up these problems in other parts of the country. So, it's a comment that sounds nice but isn't actually true. Sf was taking actions. And now, as of last night, the citizenry are also taking action (by recalling the DA)
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > solutions are essentially to forcibly remove people from the streets Solution is to build more housing. This, however, cuts against two powerful San Francisco voting blocs, and the source of its problems: homeowners and entrenched subsidized renters.
  - MAGZine 4y ago
    This is probably a correct take but not really immediately actionable. It's up the the residents of the city to decide they want to change their neighborhoods. And most new construction ends up market rate which takes a while to free up housing supply for the affected group (which is at the bottom of the market.) I'm a yimby fwiw, but as new york has shown you can have both density and an affordability issue—density isn't a a cure-all. And what's perhaps most annoying is that certain minority activist groups also actively block new development. The mission hasn't been developed much, but it's not for lack of trying.
  - 4y ago

zbrozek 4y ago

It's also just bad English. It's both more verbose and less precise than what it replaces. If I walk down the street in SF, I've experienced homelessness. But I'm not necessarily homeless. Unfortunately the same people who will chastise you about your insensitive language will also vote down every housing project.