4 ms·

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 pro

by _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.
  - resters 1y ago
    > 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? You may be right about this. But if you zoom out, how is it that we are at a moment in civilization with unprecedented wealth, unprecedented technology, unprecedented nutrition, unprecedented medical care, unprecedented education and access to information, and yet politicians gain power at the federal level by railing against petty street crime? Right-wing impulse thinking is generally what is most desirable to people who have already fully "made it" financially want -- things like a country club atmosphere (no visible poverty or crime), a suburban style layout (private over public transit, low density housing, private security, etc.) For most people, such an arrangement is suboptimal. Higher density housing is much less expensive and safer, public transit is much more efficient, economic heterogeneity an opportunity for economic interaction and small business creation, etc. In the US people have been told they need to live in the suburbs and have a big mortgage on a massive property (often 1000+ square feet and one bathroom per person) to escape the dangers of urban crime. They often purchase expensive cars and spend 2-3 hours per day commuting to an office, tying up most of their leisure time. This of course reduces government revenue in urban, higher density areas, which does lead to increased crime. But you can see how it's a cycle perpetuated by right-wing impulse style thinking. Many Americans are already very bought into this mentality with respect to housing, but they do not realize the extent to which it shapes other aspects of their worldview. To a significant extent, the financial allocations of people across the US for many decades is invested in perpetuating suburban property values and social values (fear of urban density, fear of economic diversity, fear of crime, etc.). People like Garry Tan with $100M net worth should be the ones focusing on bringing the fruits of our modern civilization to more people, not calling for them to be punished. It's a bad look and it has the same effect as Trump's rallying cry against the weakest -- it promotes the narrative that suburban, country club isolation from economic diversity is humane and desirable, and it pretends that rather than living in times of unprecedented abundance, we face such scarcity that we should abandon our empathy for the weakest among us. I'm not sure how things could get more ugly.

by _bin_ 1y ago

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.
- resters 1y ago
  > 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? You may be right about this. But if you zoom out, how is it that we are at a moment in civilization with unprecedented wealth, unprecedented technology, unprecedented nutrition, unprecedented medical care, unprecedented education and access to information, and yet politicians gain power at the federal level by railing against petty street crime? Right-wing impulse thinking is generally what is most desirable to people who have already fully "made it" financially want -- things like a country club atmosphere (no visible poverty or crime), a suburban style layout (private over public transit, low density housing, private security, etc.) For most people, such an arrangement is suboptimal. Higher density housing is much less expensive and safer, public transit is much more efficient, economic heterogeneity an opportunity for economic interaction and small business creation, etc. In the US people have been told they need to live in the suburbs and have a big mortgage on a massive property (often 1000+ square feet and one bathroom per person) to escape the dangers of urban crime. They often purchase expensive cars and spend 2-3 hours per day commuting to an office, tying up most of their leisure time. This of course reduces government revenue in urban, higher density areas, which does lead to increased crime. But you can see how it's a cycle perpetuated by right-wing impulse style thinking. Many Americans are already very bought into this mentality with respect to housing, but they do not realize the extent to which it shapes other aspects of their worldview. To a significant extent, the financial allocations of people across the US for many decades is invested in perpetuating suburban property values and social values (fear of urban density, fear of economic diversity, fear of crime, etc.). People like Garry Tan with $100M net worth should be the ones focusing on bringing the fruits of our modern civilization to more people, not calling for them to be punished. It's a bad look and it has the same effect as Trump's rallying cry against the weakest -- it promotes the narrative that suburban, country club isolation from economic diversity is humane and desirable, and it pretends that rather than living in times of unprecedented abundance, we face such scarcity that we should abandon our empathy for the weakest among us. I'm not sure how things could get more ugly.