7 ms·

It is a little strange that drinking in public was more offensive than walking naked and pooping on sidewalks... but whatever

recursive 1y ago
Pooping on sidewalks is a cornerstone of civilization. I wrote a song about it. It's also a Disney fan fiction. https://soundcloud.com/tom-theisen-2/tale-old-as-time https://soundcloud.com/tom-theisen-2/tale-old-as-time
colechristensen 1y ago
Seeing someone openly injecting themselves with something was not an uncommon sight within a few blocks of Valencia when I used to work in the neighborhood. Also poop on sidewalks. It was wild how the vibe changed over the course of 2 or 3 blocks towards or away from Valencia.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  Crazy how $350,000/yr residents will look at that and say "the city is the problem" and "get these homeless shelters out of my neighborhood" as a reaction.
  - colechristensen 1y ago
    In that general area it's more people living in tents on the sidewalk as the cause. But yeah, SF handles homeless issues poorly and spends a tremendous amount of money doing it. And you don't have to be a "get those people out of my sight and that's all I care about them" kind of person to think that SF has been doing a bad job.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      Part of the problem of handling homelessness is that the better you are at helping them, the more visible homelessness there will be. I live in Texas, we're typically very hostile to homeless people in our cities. We have anti-panhandling signage everywhere, spikes under overpasses, anti-homeless benches, very few shelters, and we arrest homeless people for panhandling all the time. The result is that the city appears to not have that many homeless people. But they're all pushed to specific overpasses and highways where they can live without persecution. Many, I'm sure, either move to cities that better accommodate them or die. Point being, if I was homeless, I'd want to be SF. Not Euless.
bombcar 1y ago
Laws are made for things that happen. In most districts it is not illegal to time travel with a newborn wolf whelp.
- timcavel 1y ago
  [dead]
- somanyphotons 1y ago
  most?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    I mean, they're not wrong. It is a subset of all.
RC_ITR 1y ago
I really dislike this logical fallacy. All three things were illegal. All three things were frowned upon. What you are actually saying is that there are many people on the streets of San Francisco who are otherwise excluded from American society and therefore have almost 'nothing to lose.' Those people often break laws, largely because the social contract has excluded them from the benefits of society (for example, knowing you have access to indoor plumbing). This article is about a change for the fortunate ones like you and me who do feel like we get a fair shake from the social contract and therefore follow most laws (I assume).
- scarmig 1y ago
  The complaint is that laws are structured in a way that only affect people who have something material to lose. There's no law of nature that says laws have to be that way, and, historically and cross-culturally, they haven't been. Upgrading my windows to be double-paned without city approval should not result in a greater punishment from the government than attacking someone on the street.
  - RC_ITR 1y ago
    I am really trying to understand what you're saying, but I disagree because I do think that today it is axiomatic that laws need enforcement to be useful and most legal enforcement involves negative consequences. I also thing that most negative consequences are either pain related (Contemporary morals have generally eradicated pain-based consequences) or restriction on access to material things. What I am ultimately trying to say is that the large majority of people on this forum see the symptom of a broken society (homelessness and drug addiction) and for whatever reason, refuse to believe that a complex network of problems is actually the thing that should draw our 'hacker' focus. Like sure, you clearly had a negative experience with permitting that caused you to have an expensive fine and feel resentment that other people do 'worse' things 'scot-free'. Would fining a homeless person more money actually solve your or the city's problems? No. The person would just not pay, because again, they have nothing to lose. Ultimately, I think where we agree is that the idea of law needs to evolve to include both punishment and state funded / enforced humanitarian care. The reason that I think this will never happen in America is because we are an inherently vengeful people with a dark history of race-based hatred and a fundamental disdain for paying taxes that fund public goods.
kjkjadksj 1y ago
You can drink in public already. If you aren’t trying to start fights or look like a drunken teenager cops could care less what is in your hand or in the coozie. Some beaches being the exception but really you can drink all over today right now and not suffer for it.

recursive 1y ago

Pooping on sidewalks is a cornerstone of civilization. I wrote a song about it. It's also a Disney fan fiction. https://soundcloud.com/tom-theisen-2/tale-old-as-time https://soundcloud.com/tom-theisen-2/tale-old-as-time

colechristensen 1y ago

Seeing someone openly injecting themselves with something was not an uncommon sight within a few blocks of Valencia when I used to work in the neighborhood. Also poop on sidewalks. It was wild how the vibe changed over the course of 2 or 3 blocks towards or away from Valencia.

bigyabai 1y ago
Crazy how $350,000/yr residents will look at that and say "the city is the problem" and "get these homeless shelters out of my neighborhood" as a reaction.
- colechristensen 1y ago
  In that general area it's more people living in tents on the sidewalk as the cause. But yeah, SF handles homeless issues poorly and spends a tremendous amount of money doing it. And you don't have to be a "get those people out of my sight and that's all I care about them" kind of person to think that SF has been doing a bad job.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Part of the problem of handling homelessness is that the better you are at helping them, the more visible homelessness there will be. I live in Texas, we're typically very hostile to homeless people in our cities. We have anti-panhandling signage everywhere, spikes under overpasses, anti-homeless benches, very few shelters, and we arrest homeless people for panhandling all the time. The result is that the city appears to not have that many homeless people. But they're all pushed to specific overpasses and highways where they can live without persecution. Many, I'm sure, either move to cities that better accommodate them or die. Point being, if I was homeless, I'd want to be SF. Not Euless.

bombcar 1y ago

Laws are made for things that happen. In most districts it is not illegal to time travel with a newborn wolf whelp.

timcavel 1y ago
[dead]
somanyphotons 1y ago
most?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  I mean, they're not wrong. It is a subset of all.

RC_ITR 1y ago

I really dislike this logical fallacy. All three things were illegal. All three things were frowned upon. What you are actually saying is that there are many people on the streets of San Francisco who are otherwise excluded from American society and therefore have almost 'nothing to lose.' Those people often break laws, largely because the social contract has excluded them from the benefits of society (for example, knowing you have access to indoor plumbing). This article is about a change for the fortunate ones like you and me who do feel like we get a fair shake from the social contract and therefore follow most laws (I assume).

scarmig 1y ago
The complaint is that laws are structured in a way that only affect people who have something material to lose. There's no law of nature that says laws have to be that way, and, historically and cross-culturally, they haven't been. Upgrading my windows to be double-paned without city approval should not result in a greater punishment from the government than attacking someone on the street.
- RC_ITR 1y ago
  I am really trying to understand what you're saying, but I disagree because I do think that today it is axiomatic that laws need enforcement to be useful and most legal enforcement involves negative consequences. I also thing that most negative consequences are either pain related (Contemporary morals have generally eradicated pain-based consequences) or restriction on access to material things. What I am ultimately trying to say is that the large majority of people on this forum see the symptom of a broken society (homelessness and drug addiction) and for whatever reason, refuse to believe that a complex network of problems is actually the thing that should draw our 'hacker' focus. Like sure, you clearly had a negative experience with permitting that caused you to have an expensive fine and feel resentment that other people do 'worse' things 'scot-free'. Would fining a homeless person more money actually solve your or the city's problems? No. The person would just not pay, because again, they have nothing to lose. Ultimately, I think where we agree is that the idea of law needs to evolve to include both punishment and state funded / enforced humanitarian care. The reason that I think this will never happen in America is because we are an inherently vengeful people with a dark history of race-based hatred and a fundamental disdain for paying taxes that fund public goods.

kjkjadksj 1y ago

You can drink in public already. If you aren’t trying to start fights or look like a drunken teenager cops could care less what is in your hand or in the coozie. Some beaches being the exception but really you can drink all over today right now and not suffer for it.