4 ms·

If you have lived in SF, you understand the context this adds to the situation.

by justrealist 3y ago

PlunderBunny 3y ago
Then couldn’t there be more detail that would allow those of us who haven’t lived in SF to understand it too?
- bombcar 3y ago
  The subtext is that he deserved to die, I assume. (Which is a bit sarcastic, perhaps, but people generally value the homeless less on various axis, whether they want to admit it or not, because when you hear "bad thing happened to man" you immediately want to know if that man could have been you, once you learn he was homeless the panic reaction subsides.)
- dmitrygr 3y ago
  Yes. Happy to help you understand. Many homeless in SF are actually very mentally ill. They sometimes jump in front of traffic. This has happened to me a few times driving in SF. So the implication is that the bus driver may not at all have been at fault.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    Yeah exactly. I'm not saying anyone deserved to die; the homeless in SF are basically not autonomous agents anymore. Right or wrong, it shifts it in my mind from "bus driver is at fault" to "nobody is at fault" (except the city that encourages themn to them stay drugged and on the streets).
    - P_I_Staker 3y ago
      So being homeless means that we shouldn't investigate fatal crashes? Personally, I don't think they should have to give up the right to not be murdered.
      - justrealist 3y ago
        Did I say that?
        P_I_Staker 3y ago
        Yup, you sure did.
  - PlunderBunny 3y ago
    Thanks - I guess we don’t know if that’s what happened in this case, but that possibility hadn’t occurred to me.
  - P_I_Staker 3y ago
    Yes, and this is fucked up, is what we're saying
moate 3y ago
I don’t live there, could you provide the context in a paragraph or 2?
- fragmede 3y ago
  The subtext is that the individual was not of right mind, either due to sleep deprivation from being unhoused, or the stress itself of being unhoused, or, to be blunt, being on drugs. Not that it, in any way, makes it okay to have run over them, but the implication is that it's possible they got hit because they stepped out/jumped in front of the bus, and that it wasn't the fault of the bus driver. Not saying that's what happened here, but that's the framing that saying they're homeless gives for me. For additional context, Harrison and 7th isn't located in the best neighborhood, which is to say there are numerous tent cities in that vicinity.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    > Harrison and 7th isn't located in the best neighborhood checks location ~$10b unicorn Plaid's headquarters. SF is truly an enigma
  - P_I_Staker 3y ago
    > Not that it, in any way, makes it okay to have run over them, but the implication is that it's possible they got hit because they stepped out/jumped in front of the bus, and that it wasn't the fault of the bus driver This sounds like this makes it, "in some way", okay to people here. No need for investigation, it must be the dirty homeless.

If you have lived in SF, you understand the context this adds to the situation.

PlunderBunny 3y ago

Then couldn’t there be more detail that would allow those of us who haven’t lived in SF to understand it too?

bombcar 3y ago
The subtext is that he deserved to die, I assume. (Which is a bit sarcastic, perhaps, but people generally value the homeless less on various axis, whether they want to admit it or not, because when you hear "bad thing happened to man" you immediately want to know if that man could have been you, once you learn he was homeless the panic reaction subsides.)
dmitrygr 3y ago
Yes. Happy to help you understand. Many homeless in SF are actually very mentally ill. They sometimes jump in front of traffic. This has happened to me a few times driving in SF. So the implication is that the bus driver may not at all have been at fault.
- justrealist 3y ago
  Yeah exactly. I'm not saying anyone deserved to die; the homeless in SF are basically not autonomous agents anymore. Right or wrong, it shifts it in my mind from "bus driver is at fault" to "nobody is at fault" (except the city that encourages themn to them stay drugged and on the streets).
  - P_I_Staker 3y ago
    So being homeless means that we shouldn't investigate fatal crashes? Personally, I don't think they should have to give up the right to not be murdered.
    - justrealist 3y ago
      Did I say that?
      - P_I_Staker 3y ago
        Yup, you sure did.
- PlunderBunny 3y ago
  Thanks - I guess we don’t know if that’s what happened in this case, but that possibility hadn’t occurred to me.
- P_I_Staker 3y ago
  Yes, and this is fucked up, is what we're saying

moate 3y ago

I don’t live there, could you provide the context in a paragraph or 2?

fragmede 3y ago
The subtext is that the individual was not of right mind, either due to sleep deprivation from being unhoused, or the stress itself of being unhoused, or, to be blunt, being on drugs. Not that it, in any way, makes it okay to have run over them, but the implication is that it's possible they got hit because they stepped out/jumped in front of the bus, and that it wasn't the fault of the bus driver. Not saying that's what happened here, but that's the framing that saying they're homeless gives for me. For additional context, Harrison and 7th isn't located in the best neighborhood, which is to say there are numerous tent cities in that vicinity.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  > Harrison and 7th isn't located in the best neighborhood checks location ~$10b unicorn Plaid's headquarters. SF is truly an enigma
- P_I_Staker 3y ago
  > Not that it, in any way, makes it okay to have run over them, but the implication is that it's possible they got hit because they stepped out/jumped in front of the bus, and that it wasn't the fault of the bus driver This sounds like this makes it, "in some way", okay to people here. No need for investigation, it must be the dirty homeless.