3 ms·

> Does "free homes for the homeless" possibly work in the US without becoming "free basic homes for everyone"? No. Free basic homes for everyone is exactly wha

> Does "free homes for the homeless" possibly work in the US without becoming "free basic homes for everyone"? No. Free basic homes for everyone is exactly what I want. > It is ludicrously easy to attack politically otherwise ("you're working two jobs to make rent for you and your family, and now they want to give these people a free home that's new and nicer than your crappy old apartment!"), and you know the American right would rip it to shreds, given they already see social security/medicare as too expensive. Easy attacks have easy solutions. Nobody should have to work two jobs to make rent, and tiered aid should exist for people who aren't already homeless such that that isn't necessary (in addition to addressing income disparities). Nobody is proposing we give the homeless free new homes and give the barely-homed nothing. > there's also the issue of "they don't wanna do things that way, so we're gonna give them nicer things; meanwhile, all the rest of you should keep following the laws kthx." I'm not even sure this narrative is coherent. Is the implication that the homeless are lawbreakers and therefore deserve to be punished... with homelessness? > We need to figure out how to reintegrate people into society without giving up on the ideas of that society in the first place. No, we don't. Which idea exactly are you talking about? If there is some idea of our society that is opposed to the idea that humans deserve to have their basic needs met, I'm pretty on board with changing the idea of our society. > From what I've looked up, places with much more established shelter programs and capacity than SF have fewer problems than SF. It makes zero sense to refuse to even start there. Who's refusing to even start there? You won't hear any perfect solution fallacies[1] from me. But I'm fully on board with imperfect solutions when better solutions aren't available, but your post seems to be arguing that we shouldn't even try the better solutions, because people might object. It's a weird circular argument: we're opposed to trying giving people homes because people might be opposed to it? We need to change minds, which is why I'm having this conversation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

majormajor 4y ago
Sorry if it wasn't clear, my argument is less "we shouldn't even try the better solutions, because people might object" and more "we shouldn't fight against other solutions in favor of a hypothetical that we are miles and miles away from being able to try." I have seen protestors who draw a line in the sand at "free good housing for everyone" (sometimes piling on even more things like "abolish capitalism" for even less feasibility) and fight against any solution short of that. And the only people who would win, politically, from that are the right-wingers who want to deploy cops against the homeless and push them out of town and out of sight. Enough people start to lose patience with the lack of action that they vote with the assholes since nobody else is trying anything. It's not all the way there, but look at the last mayoral election in Los Angeles: two candidates who were both fairly pro-police and pro-shelter and pro-encampment-clearing, despite the efforts of the more radical protestors. If those efforts were to get blocked by protests from the left, I think people would only swing further right on that issue, since both of the final candidates were already far more active on the issue in their platform than in previous elections.

majormajor 4y ago

Sorry if it wasn't clear, my argument is less "we shouldn't even try the better solutions, because people might object" and more "we shouldn't fight against other solutions in favor of a hypothetical that we are miles and miles away from being able to try." I have seen protestors who draw a line in the sand at "free good housing for everyone" (sometimes piling on even more things like "abolish capitalism" for even less feasibility) and fight against any solution short of that. And the only people who would win, politically, from that are the right-wingers who want to deploy cops against the homeless and push them out of town and out of sight. Enough people start to lose patience with the lack of action that they vote with the assholes since nobody else is trying anything. It's not all the way there, but look at the last mayoral election in Los Angeles: two candidates who were both fairly pro-police and pro-shelter and pro-encampment-clearing, despite the efforts of the more radical protestors. If those efforts were to get blocked by protests from the left, I think people would only swing further right on that issue, since both of the final candidates were already far more active on the issue in their platform than in previous elections.