4 ms·

If by “government”, you mean “citizens”, then sure. But we elect the government and can toss them out next election cycle.

INTPenis 4y ago
A bad government breeds social inequality and this leads to desperation among citizens. You can't just blame citizens as if there's something in the air in SF. People are desperate. Tbh the whole US system is so messed up, it's generations upon generations of PTSD among the working masses. I hate to get into these discussions but it makes my blood boil to see how people are left stranded with no safety net and just more and more money gouging corporations around them.
- joemazerino 4y ago
  What does this have to do with murder? This could have been premeditated or a random attack. No one knows yet.
  - INTPenis 4y ago
    I sure as hell don't know but the poster blamed the citizens as if there's something in the air in SF. And all the comments are about the general state of the city, rather than a targeted attack. So calm down, read the comments and you'll see that no one has any idea what happened and are just grasping.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Legneato blamed "the government" for the state of the city. I was only pointing out that the government is us. We elect them, they don't existing a vacuum. I never directly blamed the citizens, but they are the ones who live there, work there, and elect the government, so at least indirectly, they are to blame. It's a wealthy city - there's no reason (beyond apathy or greed) that the government can't implement policies that make the city a better place.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  I don't disagree with anything you said. But governments, and the policies they enact, don't exist in a vacuum. And local government is the most direct/effective place to vote for change.
- buzzert 4y ago
  > left stranded with no safety net I don't understand why this lie keeps getting repeated. The US has a very generous social safety net, even compared to wealthy western-European countries. Most especially San Francisco, which has rent assistance, free healthcare, stipends, and countless other things.
TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
Am I missing something? I live in the midwest, so I might be. From here, San Francisco seems so deeply liberal and Democratic, that even if you would change out the entire local government, you'd get similarly-minded people right back, and nothing would change. I'm also middle-aged, and seen this argument before. No matter how bad things get in, say, Chicago or Detroit, "citizens" have never flipped a deeply-Democratic city, nor implemented significant changes to the systemic policies that have led to their situations. For decades, I've watched from afar as people argue about SF's housing policies, which I think are ultimately responsible for almost all the problems there. Is there ANY hope that the local government would risk losing an iota of existing property value by making policies to significantly expand housing?
- Gareth321 4y ago
  New York voted in Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, in 1994 because of out of control crime. When things get bad enough people take action. It's just that not enough people have died yet for voters to care. Also, party affiliation is much more like a religion in America now than it is a democratic institution. Party affiliation is a core identity now, and people don't like to acknowledge their religion's failings no matter the evidence.
  - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
    As I wrote that, I actually thought about New York and the way they clawed their way out of the violence and crime in the 80's. I didn't know it was Giuliani; I didn't know he went back that far. It's interesting to contrast this exception to my generalization, because they implemented no-tolerance police policies that are utterly unconscionable today, especially in a place like San Fran.
    - bmelton 4y ago
      It's even more interesting than that, really, because crime everywhere was bad in the very early 90s. Giuliani gets the credit for having cleaned up crime in NYC (and maybe he did) but we look to the early 90s as kind of the high water mark for crime, and particularly violent crime, everywhere. At the same time as New York's crime was falling, the same thing was happening everywhere -- San Diego and Austin and San Jose had basically identical trajectories as NYC under Giuliani, but obviously did not have Giuliani (tho perhaps they had also brought in their own? Just Googling now, and it seems San Diego brought in Susan Golding (R) in 1992 to replace Maureen O'Connor (D), and they didn't flip back until 2005. Austin had Bruce Todd (which one article refers to as an "establishment Democrat") from 91-97, and Kirk Watson (D) from 97-01. San Jose has had consecutively Democratic mayors from 1971 to now. TLDR, I don't think party alignment is as indicative as we might hope it would be, however much policy preferences might tend to overlap with party. Perhaps that was different way back in the 90s, when polarization wasn't as high, and/or party marching orders weren't quite as unified nationally as they seem to be now -- or I'm just missing something obvious elsewhere

INTPenis 4y ago

A bad government breeds social inequality and this leads to desperation among citizens. You can't just blame citizens as if there's something in the air in SF. People are desperate. Tbh the whole US system is so messed up, it's generations upon generations of PTSD among the working masses. I hate to get into these discussions but it makes my blood boil to see how people are left stranded with no safety net and just more and more money gouging corporations around them.

joemazerino 4y ago
What does this have to do with murder? This could have been premeditated or a random attack. No one knows yet.
- INTPenis 4y ago
  I sure as hell don't know but the poster blamed the citizens as if there's something in the air in SF. And all the comments are about the general state of the city, rather than a targeted attack. So calm down, read the comments and you'll see that no one has any idea what happened and are just grasping.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Legneato blamed "the government" for the state of the city. I was only pointing out that the government is us. We elect them, they don't existing a vacuum. I never directly blamed the citizens, but they are the ones who live there, work there, and elect the government, so at least indirectly, they are to blame. It's a wealthy city - there's no reason (beyond apathy or greed) that the government can't implement policies that make the city a better place.
alistairSH 4y ago
I don't disagree with anything you said. But governments, and the policies they enact, don't exist in a vacuum. And local government is the most direct/effective place to vote for change.
buzzert 4y ago
> left stranded with no safety net I don't understand why this lie keeps getting repeated. The US has a very generous social safety net, even compared to wealthy western-European countries. Most especially San Francisco, which has rent assistance, free healthcare, stipends, and countless other things.

TheRealDunkirk 4y ago

Am I missing something? I live in the midwest, so I might be. From here, San Francisco seems so deeply liberal and Democratic, that even if you would change out the entire local government, you'd get similarly-minded people right back, and nothing would change. I'm also middle-aged, and seen this argument before. No matter how bad things get in, say, Chicago or Detroit, "citizens" have never flipped a deeply-Democratic city, nor implemented significant changes to the systemic policies that have led to their situations. For decades, I've watched from afar as people argue about SF's housing policies, which I think are ultimately responsible for almost all the problems there. Is there ANY hope that the local government would risk losing an iota of existing property value by making policies to significantly expand housing?

Gareth321 4y ago
New York voted in Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, in 1994 because of out of control crime. When things get bad enough people take action. It's just that not enough people have died yet for voters to care. Also, party affiliation is much more like a religion in America now than it is a democratic institution. Party affiliation is a core identity now, and people don't like to acknowledge their religion's failings no matter the evidence.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  As I wrote that, I actually thought about New York and the way they clawed their way out of the violence and crime in the 80's. I didn't know it was Giuliani; I didn't know he went back that far. It's interesting to contrast this exception to my generalization, because they implemented no-tolerance police policies that are utterly unconscionable today, especially in a place like San Fran.
  - bmelton 4y ago
    It's even more interesting than that, really, because crime everywhere was bad in the very early 90s. Giuliani gets the credit for having cleaned up crime in NYC (and maybe he did) but we look to the early 90s as kind of the high water mark for crime, and particularly violent crime, everywhere. At the same time as New York's crime was falling, the same thing was happening everywhere -- San Diego and Austin and San Jose had basically identical trajectories as NYC under Giuliani, but obviously did not have Giuliani (tho perhaps they had also brought in their own? Just Googling now, and it seems San Diego brought in Susan Golding (R) in 1992 to replace Maureen O'Connor (D), and they didn't flip back until 2005. Austin had Bruce Todd (which one article refers to as an "establishment Democrat") from 91-97, and Kirk Watson (D) from 97-01. San Jose has had consecutively Democratic mayors from 1971 to now. TLDR, I don't think party alignment is as indicative as we might hope it would be, however much policy preferences might tend to overlap with party. Perhaps that was different way back in the 90s, when polarization wasn't as high, and/or party marching orders weren't quite as unified nationally as they seem to be now -- or I'm just missing something obvious elsewhere