6 ms·

If you're going to make "a long-term attack on the causes, not the symptoms", focusing exclusively on personal morality and ignoring all structural aspects of h

If you're going to make "a long-term attack on the causes, not the symptoms", focusing exclusively on personal morality and ignoring all structural aspects of homelessness (e.g. housing costs) is pretty limiting. What it will achieve is enraging the greater populace at the supposed decadence of the homeless and sharpening a sense of moral superiority over the homeless, quenching political support for any tangible aid.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Personal behavior is the foundation that everything else is built on. There really is no alternative. You dont have to come at this from a position of judgment, superiority, or avoiding aid. That is a false binary. The idea is pretty simple: You need the disadvantaged to be active participants and stakeholders in building a better future. You can't do it without them. In the case of homelessness, it points to earlier intervention. If someone becomes a teen drug addict, parent, and felon, their chances of escaping poverty are quite poor. Third parties cant control behavior and choices throughout a persons life, but you can help them make smart choices and build the skills to do so.
- bluescrn 4y ago
  > Personal behavior is the foundation that everything else is built on. Yes. But mostly the personal behavior of the ruling class and the super-rich. Hoarding ludicrous amounts of property/wealth/resources should be just as unacceptable as a crack habit, as it's more harmful to society as a whole.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I thought we were talking about helping the homeless here.
    - bluescrn 4y ago
      Maybe they wouldn't be homeless if the super-rich weren't hoarding so much property. Homes should primarily be homes, not investments.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Why is it whenever someone suggests we should avoid dangerous drugs and crime, someone responds with "But the rich!" as if that is some kind of clever retort? Elon Musk isn't why you went to prison for assault or selling fentanyl.
- rectang 4y ago
  > Personal behavior is the foundation that everything else is built on. There really is no alternative. This reminds me of designers who craft poorly designed interfaces which statistically guarantee that some portion of their users will make "mistakes". and then insist that users are exclusively at fault. There are structural issues in the US which greatly exacerbate the problem of homelessness and which have nothing to do with what moral teachings the homeless may or may not have received. If anything, the vituperative contempt for the homeless illustrates a moral failing in a different population. > You dont have to come at this from a position of judgment, superiority, or avoiding aid. That is a false binary. In my view, the comment I was responding to did precisely that — came at this from a perspective of avoiding aid — by asserting that focusing on anything other than personal morality was bound to fail: "However, it's unlikely you'll ever help enough of them permanently out of their holes to address the problem in any substantial way."
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I would recommend giving it another read with a charitable mindset. I didn't see any moralizing or judgment of the poor. They had a critique of current methods for addressing poverty, but I'm assuming you also agree that the status quo is not working well. >In my view, the comment I was responding to did precisely that — came at this from a perspective of avoiding aid They acknowledged that providing aid to adults is indeed good, but critiqued it as insufficient. It is indeed noble to help the homeless who are mentally or physically disabled, or addicted to drugs or alcohol, or unemployable for lack of job skills or education, or abandoned by spouses or family, or simply too old and alone They further advocated for providing aid that is missing, and focusing it on younger populations to empower them to avoid critical pitfalls and poverty traps. Instead, the first step has to be a truly intensive effort to educate and convince children, beginning at about ages 6 to 7 They want to help children understand the following list and enable them make better choices on the following: 1) Importance of health and avoiding addiction 2) Value of education and marketable skills 3) The dangers of financial debt 4) Self sufficiency as a goal 5) Avoiding crime Do you think that this education and helping children make successful choices is unnecessary or somehow detrimental?
formerkrogemp 4y ago
> What it will achieve is enraging the greater populace at the supposed decadence of the homeless and sharpening a sense of moral superiority over the homeless, quenching political support for any tangible aid. So, what we already generally have in many places in the US? We simply start with building more housing and reducing or limiting zoning only allowing single family detached homes. It's that simple to begin with. Moral grandstanding accomplishes nothing however.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Personal behavior is the foundation that everything else is built on. There really is no alternative. You dont have to come at this from a position of judgment, superiority, or avoiding aid. That is a false binary. The idea is pretty simple: You need the disadvantaged to be active participants and stakeholders in building a better future. You can't do it without them. In the case of homelessness, it points to earlier intervention. If someone becomes a teen drug addict, parent, and felon, their chances of escaping poverty are quite poor. Third parties cant control behavior and choices throughout a persons life, but you can help them make smart choices and build the skills to do so.

bluescrn 4y ago
> Personal behavior is the foundation that everything else is built on. Yes. But mostly the personal behavior of the ruling class and the super-rich. Hoarding ludicrous amounts of property/wealth/resources should be just as unacceptable as a crack habit, as it's more harmful to society as a whole.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I thought we were talking about helping the homeless here.
  - bluescrn 4y ago
    Maybe they wouldn't be homeless if the super-rich weren't hoarding so much property. Homes should primarily be homes, not investments.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Why is it whenever someone suggests we should avoid dangerous drugs and crime, someone responds with "But the rich!" as if that is some kind of clever retort? Elon Musk isn't why you went to prison for assault or selling fentanyl.
rectang 4y ago
> Personal behavior is the foundation that everything else is built on. There really is no alternative. This reminds me of designers who craft poorly designed interfaces which statistically guarantee that some portion of their users will make "mistakes". and then insist that users are exclusively at fault. There are structural issues in the US which greatly exacerbate the problem of homelessness and which have nothing to do with what moral teachings the homeless may or may not have received. If anything, the vituperative contempt for the homeless illustrates a moral failing in a different population. > You dont have to come at this from a position of judgment, superiority, or avoiding aid. That is a false binary. In my view, the comment I was responding to did precisely that — came at this from a perspective of avoiding aid — by asserting that focusing on anything other than personal morality was bound to fail: "However, it's unlikely you'll ever help enough of them permanently out of their holes to address the problem in any substantial way."
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I would recommend giving it another read with a charitable mindset. I didn't see any moralizing or judgment of the poor. They had a critique of current methods for addressing poverty, but I'm assuming you also agree that the status quo is not working well. >In my view, the comment I was responding to did precisely that — came at this from a perspective of avoiding aid They acknowledged that providing aid to adults is indeed good, but critiqued it as insufficient. It is indeed noble to help the homeless who are mentally or physically disabled, or addicted to drugs or alcohol, or unemployable for lack of job skills or education, or abandoned by spouses or family, or simply too old and alone They further advocated for providing aid that is missing, and focusing it on younger populations to empower them to avoid critical pitfalls and poverty traps. Instead, the first step has to be a truly intensive effort to educate and convince children, beginning at about ages 6 to 7 They want to help children understand the following list and enable them make better choices on the following: 1) Importance of health and avoiding addiction 2) Value of education and marketable skills 3) The dangers of financial debt 4) Self sufficiency as a goal 5) Avoiding crime Do you think that this education and helping children make successful choices is unnecessary or somehow detrimental?

formerkrogemp 4y ago

> What it will achieve is enraging the greater populace at the supposed decadence of the homeless and sharpening a sense of moral superiority over the homeless, quenching political support for any tangible aid. So, what we already generally have in many places in the US? We simply start with building more housing and reducing or limiting zoning only allowing single family detached homes. It's that simple to begin with. Moral grandstanding accomplishes nothing however.