6 ms·

I think I'd actually read many left-wingers more charitably here; the mainstream democrat opinion is still that systemic forces impact crime rates and should be

by _bin_ 1y ago

I think I'd actually read many left-wingers more charitably here; the mainstream democrat opinion is still that systemic forces impact crime rates and should be addressed but not that those justify discarding policing or order in the mean time. That's a uniquely radical progressive take, by which the SF government was unfortunately captured. I think Tan's statement here is more a strong reaction against the failed progressive version seeking to drag the overton window in SF back towards normalcy. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but Tan and YC have actually stuck around, unlike other people and companies who have simply left, so I'm guessing they're approaching this in good faith. This aligns pretty well with my personal view. Maybe we can go figure out root causes later. Depending on those causes and the possible means to address them, maybe we can enact policy changes to reduce the amount of crime in the future. All that is, however, secondary to what we must do today: return to zero-tolerance policies for petty crime to make the city liveable again.

resters 1y ago
> That's a uniquely radical progressive take "Radical left-wing lunatics" I'd argue that it's not at all radical, and that what characterizes SF's unique challenge has more to do with urban planning, geography, and climate than anything else: Affluent areas are on big hills with little mass transit, which concentrates both mass transit and poverty in specific low lying areas, which also happen to suffer from minimal or bad urban planning. The climate makes SF attractive to unhoused people, and so they are drawn to the tolerant atmosphere and tend to thrive there even while dealing with addiction and substance abuse, mental health issues, etc. (compared to other places). In other places they might be inmates or might be significantly malnourished, but SF offers a better balance, which is why so many find themselves there. Mild weather in winter and summer, a sanctuary city mentality, and the high value of personal freedom that led to the Castro and Haight being epicenters for social progress and culture over the years. Cosmopolitanism and tolerance abound, and so of course we'll see our underclass more active, more overt, less beaten down, and notably more offensive to those who seek a country club atmosphere. SF has 30% lower mortality rate for homeless people than other sanctuary cities like Chicago. The problem is that the right-wing perspective presents the downtrodden effectively as rats who are a scourge on society, so most people overlook that people (yes they are human beings) migrate to SF for a better life, and in spite of the challenges they face, many find it.
- _bin_ 1y ago
  Please don't misquote me; I didn't call people lunatics. There are radical wings to both the left and right. You can argue that, but that's true is that the problems in SF have objectively gotten much, much worse. All the problems you're calling out are true, and many of the reasons you're saying homeless stay are true. What's also true is that there's a big discontinuity in crime rates and decay of public order that matches much more closely with changes in policing and justice along with some social programs.
  - resters 1y ago
    I quoted you with the > symbol and Trump with normal quotes. Apologies for the confusion. > decay of public order that matches much more closely with changes in policing and justice I don't think anyone is claiming that SF could not implement Singapore style policing (for example) and see improvements in "public order". Right wing solutions abound, everything from putting people in rehabilitation camps, mental hospitals, mandatory jail time for minor offenses, inpatient substance abuse facilities, chemical castration of the poor, deportations to El Salvador, etc. Many in the US have a right wing impulse when thinking about certain types of criminality, typically the kinds of crimes committed by the underclass. This impulse builds on disgust, fear and dehumanization, but the foundational element is moral judgment of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. I think it's helpful to have a mental heuristic to reduce susceptibility to this kind of thinking. Consider, for example, the amount of insider trading that occurred in financial markets recently from all of the pumping of markets with various tariff announcements. The money stolen via insider trading would be more than enough to buy a 3000 square foot home and personal chef services for 15 years for every single homeless person in the bay area. Let's not pretend that smashed car windows are the only kind of crime that matters. In today's world with such rampant fraud and white collar crime everywhere, anyone who uses their platform to focus people's attention on the crime of the weakest among us clearly has a very right wing view of whose lawlessness needs to be stopped and whose should be permitted.
    - _bin_ 1y ago
      Oh mb, wasn't sure. I don't like Singapore's solution; I think it's too authoritarian. Most people agree that there are benefits to a police state in terms of public order but we consciously forsake those in exchange for liberty. What does nothing for liberty, and also nothing for public order, is allowing open-air drug use. Is failing to prosecute property crime. Is catch-and-release policing because the DA won't do squat. I don't think the common man cares about this due to dehumanization of the poor, it's due to the fact that we are the ones actually victimized by this. Joe average is much less affected by John Wallstreet trading on insider information. His car getting busted into and robbed? Packages getting stolen from his front porch? His wife getting harassed and terrified by drugged-out schizos, while unable to so much as carry a handgun for her own defense? Those victimize the common man and so the common man cares about them. Saying this is a right-wing impulse is, I think, precisely what put Trump in office. Twice. The democrats were largely subverted by progressives and ceded this monopoly on the idea of public order to the republicans. Why is it such a stretch to say that yes, we believe that the common man should be protected from wage theft or pollution, and also we believe that he should be protected from violent or criminal impulses? The reality of the situation is that while yes, insider trading or other white-collar crime has an impact on the average American, it's much less tangible. And ultimately, it's less emotionally harmful and poses no risk of violence. Please don't mistake me; we should strongly punish both. But it's responses like this to ordinary people showing up to city hall meetings or political fora and saying, "What about all this crime that's happening to me?" It's these responses, in the vein of, "Why would we care when there are Madoffs to catch?" that turn people away from the left.

by _bin_ 1y ago

resters 1y ago

> That's a uniquely radical progressive take "Radical left-wing lunatics" I'd argue that it's not at all radical, and that what characterizes SF's unique challenge has more to do with urban planning, geography, and climate than anything else: Affluent areas are on big hills with little mass transit, which concentrates both mass transit and poverty in specific low lying areas, which also happen to suffer from minimal or bad urban planning. The climate makes SF attractive to unhoused people, and so they are drawn to the tolerant atmosphere and tend to thrive there even while dealing with addiction and substance abuse, mental health issues, etc. (compared to other places). In other places they might be inmates or might be significantly malnourished, but SF offers a better balance, which is why so many find themselves there. Mild weather in winter and summer, a sanctuary city mentality, and the high value of personal freedom that led to the Castro and Haight being epicenters for social progress and culture over the years. Cosmopolitanism and tolerance abound, and so of course we'll see our underclass more active, more overt, less beaten down, and notably more offensive to those who seek a country club atmosphere. SF has 30% lower mortality rate for homeless people than other sanctuary cities like Chicago. The problem is that the right-wing perspective presents the downtrodden effectively as rats who are a scourge on society, so most people overlook that people (yes they are human beings) migrate to SF for a better life, and in spite of the challenges they face, many find it.

_bin_ 1y ago
Please don't misquote me; I didn't call people lunatics. There are radical wings to both the left and right. You can argue that, but that's true is that the problems in SF have objectively gotten much, much worse. All the problems you're calling out are true, and many of the reasons you're saying homeless stay are true. What's also true is that there's a big discontinuity in crime rates and decay of public order that matches much more closely with changes in policing and justice along with some social programs.
- resters 1y ago
  I quoted you with the > symbol and Trump with normal quotes. Apologies for the confusion. > decay of public order that matches much more closely with changes in policing and justice I don't think anyone is claiming that SF could not implement Singapore style policing (for example) and see improvements in "public order". Right wing solutions abound, everything from putting people in rehabilitation camps, mental hospitals, mandatory jail time for minor offenses, inpatient substance abuse facilities, chemical castration of the poor, deportations to El Salvador, etc. Many in the US have a right wing impulse when thinking about certain types of criminality, typically the kinds of crimes committed by the underclass. This impulse builds on disgust, fear and dehumanization, but the foundational element is moral judgment of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. I think it's helpful to have a mental heuristic to reduce susceptibility to this kind of thinking. Consider, for example, the amount of insider trading that occurred in financial markets recently from all of the pumping of markets with various tariff announcements. The money stolen via insider trading would be more than enough to buy a 3000 square foot home and personal chef services for 15 years for every single homeless person in the bay area. Let's not pretend that smashed car windows are the only kind of crime that matters. In today's world with such rampant fraud and white collar crime everywhere, anyone who uses their platform to focus people's attention on the crime of the weakest among us clearly has a very right wing view of whose lawlessness needs to be stopped and whose should be permitted.
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    Oh mb, wasn't sure. I don't like Singapore's solution; I think it's too authoritarian. Most people agree that there are benefits to a police state in terms of public order but we consciously forsake those in exchange for liberty. What does nothing for liberty, and also nothing for public order, is allowing open-air drug use. Is failing to prosecute property crime. Is catch-and-release policing because the DA won't do squat. I don't think the common man cares about this due to dehumanization of the poor, it's due to the fact that we are the ones actually victimized by this. Joe average is much less affected by John Wallstreet trading on insider information. His car getting busted into and robbed? Packages getting stolen from his front porch? His wife getting harassed and terrified by drugged-out schizos, while unable to so much as carry a handgun for her own defense? Those victimize the common man and so the common man cares about them. Saying this is a right-wing impulse is, I think, precisely what put Trump in office. Twice. The democrats were largely subverted by progressives and ceded this monopoly on the idea of public order to the republicans. Why is it such a stretch to say that yes, we believe that the common man should be protected from wage theft or pollution, and also we believe that he should be protected from violent or criminal impulses? The reality of the situation is that while yes, insider trading or other white-collar crime has an impact on the average American, it's much less tangible. And ultimately, it's less emotionally harmful and poses no risk of violence. Please don't mistake me; we should strongly punish both. But it's responses like this to ordinary people showing up to city hall meetings or political fora and saying, "What about all this crime that's happening to me?" It's these responses, in the vein of, "Why would we care when there are Madoffs to catch?" that turn people away from the left.