4 ms·

Historically, the law tends to differentiate between human beings and inanimate objects because not doing so has historically been highly unpopular. Littering

Historically, the law tends to differentiate between human beings and inanimate objects because not doing so has historically been highly unpopular. Littering is already illegal, and without parking time limits in certain places you would not be able to park there in the first place.

Aunche 2y ago
Littering is illegal, but nobody is going to conduct a DNA test to confirm whether the feces or needles next to this homeless guy's camp is really theirs. The presumption of innocence is overall a good thing, but this also means that the only legal means to enforce things like not disposing needles on the streets is by selectively enforcing homelessness on bad actors.
- wolverine876 2y ago
  > feces or needles I've seen many, many campsites of unhoused people. Like housed people's domiciles and yards, some are neat, some are messier. I don't see many specific problems. I think the parent comment's characterization is a myth, in part because it maps so neatly to the common prejudices of people who are unfamiliar with unhoused people - especially that they are somehow so horrifyingly filthy, to the point of being subhuman, an object of their outrage - and not with the reality of it, including the real problems. > feces That's a red flag for me. People commonly play it as a trump card against unhoused people - again, that subhumanity and outrage. It clearly is chosen to press that emotional button, to bypass the listener's reason and compassion. We are probably well-evolved to have a disgust reaction to feces. I've never seen it; I'm not sure how people so afraid of unhoused people have seen it so much. And how the heck did you know if it's from a dog or a person? What are the distinguishing characteristics? Did you examine it closely? I've seen city officials report it, but in limited experience: I've passed by encampments that were clean and neat, and then soon after read in the news that the city cleared the encampment due to the old 'feces and needles'. The reporting never checks the facts. By far the feces I see most in regard to unhoused people is bull feces in textual form. That's easier to recognize!
  - orwin 2y ago
    Just to say I kinda like you differenciating between unhoused and homeless. I've homeless for two years while studying software engineering, the set of problem I've encountered is not the same as the set of problem unhoused people face.
  - Aunche 2y ago
    > I've never seen it It is indeed rare... because cities are typically allowed to arrest the people who do so. It's only in cities dominated by the idea the homeless are helpless victims who can do no wrong where you see needles and feces, like SF.
    - wolverine876 2y ago
      > cities are typically allowed to arrest the people who do so How do the cities identify this evil criminal? (The jokes write themselves.) > cities dominated by the idea the homeless are helpless victims who can do no wrong where you see needles and feces, like SF. Hmm .. the goalposts shift. What cities do you mean and what specific policies?

Aunche 2y ago

Littering is illegal, but nobody is going to conduct a DNA test to confirm whether the feces or needles next to this homeless guy's camp is really theirs. The presumption of innocence is overall a good thing, but this also means that the only legal means to enforce things like not disposing needles on the streets is by selectively enforcing homelessness on bad actors.

wolverine876 2y ago
> feces or needles I've seen many, many campsites of unhoused people. Like housed people's domiciles and yards, some are neat, some are messier. I don't see many specific problems. I think the parent comment's characterization is a myth, in part because it maps so neatly to the common prejudices of people who are unfamiliar with unhoused people - especially that they are somehow so horrifyingly filthy, to the point of being subhuman, an object of their outrage - and not with the reality of it, including the real problems. > feces That's a red flag for me. People commonly play it as a trump card against unhoused people - again, that subhumanity and outrage. It clearly is chosen to press that emotional button, to bypass the listener's reason and compassion. We are probably well-evolved to have a disgust reaction to feces. I've never seen it; I'm not sure how people so afraid of unhoused people have seen it so much. And how the heck did you know if it's from a dog or a person? What are the distinguishing characteristics? Did you examine it closely? I've seen city officials report it, but in limited experience: I've passed by encampments that were clean and neat, and then soon after read in the news that the city cleared the encampment due to the old 'feces and needles'. The reporting never checks the facts. By far the feces I see most in regard to unhoused people is bull feces in textual form. That's easier to recognize!
- orwin 2y ago
  Just to say I kinda like you differenciating between unhoused and homeless. I've homeless for two years while studying software engineering, the set of problem I've encountered is not the same as the set of problem unhoused people face.
- Aunche 2y ago
  > I've never seen it It is indeed rare... because cities are typically allowed to arrest the people who do so. It's only in cities dominated by the idea the homeless are helpless victims who can do no wrong where you see needles and feces, like SF.
  - wolverine876 2y ago
    > cities are typically allowed to arrest the people who do so How do the cities identify this evil criminal? (The jokes write themselves.) > cities dominated by the idea the homeless are helpless victims who can do no wrong where you see needles and feces, like SF. Hmm .. the goalposts shift. What cities do you mean and what specific policies?