3 ms·

This is such a lazy approach to social issues. Being poor and homeless is so hard. The system is built with countless chicken-egg problems that make it almost

by warent 3y ago

This is such a lazy approach to social issues. Being poor and homeless is so hard. The system is built with countless chicken-egg problems that make it almost impossible to climb out of poverty. On top of this, elitists who are so disconnected are arbitrarily enforcing this kind of amoral depraved nonsense. Should we just keep stripping the needy of more and more resources until eventually maybe they'll just disappear or die because fuck them for existing and inconveniencing us? Good grief.

sporkland 3y ago
people are shooting up and shitting in front of schools, houses libraries leaving their empty needles and feces for the rest of us. Good grief, it's way beyond inconvenience. It's deeply damaging the safety and quality of life for a large number of poor and rich people to keep allowing people to freely chase their addictions without constraint (and I have a lot of empathy for the pain those people are carrying that is pushing them towards drugs). I have no idea if you actually live here or are just another out of touch out of towner looking down our noses at us. I do believe that the homeless are getting an unfair share of a blame for the actual crime happening in San Francisco, but they are deeply contributing to the overall levels of lack of safety and the knock on effects of shootings related to turf wars related to supplying them with illegal drugs.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aeternum 3y ago
The city is just so inept. It is such a nonsensical policy to allow encampments but lock the bathrooms and turn off the internet. The city policies force them to defecate in the street/bushes and god forbid they use the internet to search for potential employment or other services.
- warent 3y ago
  Meanwhile people say "But the homeless people will just use public wifi for porn!" Like... okay, and what are you using your wifi for? Regardless, removing this would just make them more stressed and irratic. There are worse things than legal porn on public wifi. If this tradeoff means 1% of them feel relaxed enough to actually do a job search afterward, and get motivated to get money for a more comfortable, more private place, then it's worth it. But this is all a red-herring and not the real issue. The lack of a panacea--a silver bullet solution to homelessness--does not mean all our resources are just a suboptimal waste. These incremental improvements are worthwhile when the cost tradeoff is so tiny (e.g. an internet modem with a properly configured firewall basically runs itself)
  - michaelt 3y ago
    > what are you using your wifi for? Pretty sure it's more a matter of location. Normal people only masturbate in the privacy of their own homes. I know San Francisco is a very progressive city, but I don't think they're yet ready to embrace homeless people jerking it on the sidewalk outside the library.
    - warent 3y ago
      I agree that we need to be mindful about our approach. Homeless people can't be given unlimited luxuries because we can't afford it as a society. That being said, your comment comes across as reductive to the homeless population as being nothing more than a snide, tongue-in-cheek joke. This "Normal people" messaging is what allows us to abstract homeless people into this "other" group, which is dangerous and inhumane. Like it or not, these people with all of their problems are a part of us all.
      - michaelt 3y ago
        But was my comment more snide and reductive than your "okay, and what are you using your wifi for" quip? I mean, I get that you want to see homeless people better supported. But championing their right to masturbate in public is I think going to get your cause more opponents than supporters.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        > reductive to the homeless population as being nothing more than a snide, tongue-in-cheek joke It is only a joke until you actually see that, then it is no longer a joke, just sad reality.
Sparkyte 3y ago
I don't think either of those things will work. Having a drug problem is a huge issue here. If more people worked there would be more business, more business more opportunity. The real unemployment numbers are the issue. The reason we keep raising the retirement age is to prevent a drop out of the workforce, you can only raise it for so long before you lose the valuable workforce you need to sustain a region. Many homeless people are jobless and without income. Providing federal jobs isn't helpful because, 1.) Criminal Records. Some have these. 2.) Lost Identity. Without an identity rightful employment is hard. 3.) The government doesn't have enough work. State / Federal If we want to overcome this challenge of homelessness you need to divide the homeless into the categories of need and provide services equal to that need. Down on luck just need a home and a job. Druggies need to be locked up to get clean. But not the way we traditionally lock them up, I'm sick of our penetentrary system it sucks, but there are other ways to criminal drug use. We just need to adapt like other countries. Mentally ill just need a together home with other people who can provide vocational, mentoring and emotional guidance. It isn't simple but we lump them into HOMELESS and then we remain fucked.

by warent 3y ago

sporkland 3y ago

people are shooting up and shitting in front of schools, houses libraries leaving their empty needles and feces for the rest of us. Good grief, it's way beyond inconvenience. It's deeply damaging the safety and quality of life for a large number of poor and rich people to keep allowing people to freely chase their addictions without constraint (and I have a lot of empathy for the pain those people are carrying that is pushing them towards drugs). I have no idea if you actually live here or are just another out of touch out of towner looking down our noses at us. I do believe that the homeless are getting an unfair share of a blame for the actual crime happening in San Francisco, but they are deeply contributing to the overall levels of lack of safety and the knock on effects of shootings related to turf wars related to supplying them with illegal drugs.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

aeternum 3y ago

The city is just so inept. It is such a nonsensical policy to allow encampments but lock the bathrooms and turn off the internet. The city policies force them to defecate in the street/bushes and god forbid they use the internet to search for potential employment or other services.

warent 3y ago
Meanwhile people say "But the homeless people will just use public wifi for porn!" Like... okay, and what are you using your wifi for? Regardless, removing this would just make them more stressed and irratic. There are worse things than legal porn on public wifi. If this tradeoff means 1% of them feel relaxed enough to actually do a job search afterward, and get motivated to get money for a more comfortable, more private place, then it's worth it. But this is all a red-herring and not the real issue. The lack of a panacea--a silver bullet solution to homelessness--does not mean all our resources are just a suboptimal waste. These incremental improvements are worthwhile when the cost tradeoff is so tiny (e.g. an internet modem with a properly configured firewall basically runs itself)
- michaelt 3y ago
  > what are you using your wifi for? Pretty sure it's more a matter of location. Normal people only masturbate in the privacy of their own homes. I know San Francisco is a very progressive city, but I don't think they're yet ready to embrace homeless people jerking it on the sidewalk outside the library.
  - warent 3y ago
    I agree that we need to be mindful about our approach. Homeless people can't be given unlimited luxuries because we can't afford it as a society. That being said, your comment comes across as reductive to the homeless population as being nothing more than a snide, tongue-in-cheek joke. This "Normal people" messaging is what allows us to abstract homeless people into this "other" group, which is dangerous and inhumane. Like it or not, these people with all of their problems are a part of us all.
    - michaelt 3y ago
      But was my comment more snide and reductive than your "okay, and what are you using your wifi for" quip? I mean, I get that you want to see homeless people better supported. But championing their right to masturbate in public is I think going to get your cause more opponents than supporters.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      > reductive to the homeless population as being nothing more than a snide, tongue-in-cheek joke It is only a joke until you actually see that, then it is no longer a joke, just sad reality.

Sparkyte 3y ago

I don't think either of those things will work. Having a drug problem is a huge issue here. If more people worked there would be more business, more business more opportunity. The real unemployment numbers are the issue. The reason we keep raising the retirement age is to prevent a drop out of the workforce, you can only raise it for so long before you lose the valuable workforce you need to sustain a region. Many homeless people are jobless and without income. Providing federal jobs isn't helpful because, 1.) Criminal Records. Some have these. 2.) Lost Identity. Without an identity rightful employment is hard. 3.) The government doesn't have enough work. State / Federal If we want to overcome this challenge of homelessness you need to divide the homeless into the categories of need and provide services equal to that need. Down on luck just need a home and a job. Druggies need to be locked up to get clean. But not the way we traditionally lock them up, I'm sick of our penetentrary system it sucks, but there are other ways to criminal drug use. We just need to adapt like other countries. Mentally ill just need a together home with other people who can provide vocational, mentoring and emotional guidance. It isn't simple but we lump them into HOMELESS and then we remain fucked.