12 ms·
Then couldn’t there be more detail that would allow those of us who haven’t lived in SF to understand it too?
by 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 agoThe 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 agoYes. 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 agoYeah 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 agoSo 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 agoDid I say that?
- P_I_Staker 3y agoYup, you sure did.
- PlunderBunny 3y agoThanks - 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 agoYes, and this is fucked up, is what we're saying