4 ms·
Giving housing to the homeless means we change the homeless into neighbours. And who the hell wants a poor person as a neighbour.
by beAbU 1y ago
Giving housing to the homeless means we change the homeless into neighbours.
And who the hell wants a poor person as a neighbour.
- bitlax 1y ago[flagged]
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y agoWhat does this have to do with poor or homeless people?
- bitlax 1y agoYou don't understand. I'm a real person who's had real experiences. I am now disinclined to invest in housing for the homeless because you won't take my real problems seriously. If you actually don't understand the connection you should refrain from commenting.
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y agoYou sound like the exact person this article is satirizing.
- bitlax 1y agoI doubt you could describe the target of this piece but it is not people like myself. That is not to say that the piece should taken seriously. She would have been wiser to simply tweet the title rather than lift the veil on her various unearned grudges. At any rate, you can continue try to insult me but it will not persuade me. You might not think that matters but here we are.
- freeone3000 1y agoMarijuana usage is now in the mainstream. You might as well ask how to prevent your property from smelling like cigarette smoke.
- hollerith 1y agoThat has been addressed in some jurisdictions: >San Rafael law prohibits smoking in all apartment and condo complexes (if your home shares a wall with another home – you can’t smoke there). A housing complex is only allowed to create outdoor smoking areas if they meet certain criteria. Landlords and property managers are required to enforce this law through lease agreements. For more information about this, check out this handbook: >https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/san-rafael-smoke-free-housing-handbook/ https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/san-rafael-smoke-f...
- bitlax 1y agoMy property doesn't smell like cigarette smoke. I've had various mechanisms of enforcement to prevent it. Also marijuana usage is not in the mainstream in my community. In order to prevent it I will not make the investments advocated for here.
- Loughla 1y agoI can go weeks without smelling cigarettes or seeing someone smoking a cigarette. But every fucking day marijuana. Every public park; marijuana. Sports events; marijuana. Just sitting in traffic; marijuana. Waiting in fucking line at my kids' after-school pickup, marijuana. It's a little ridiculous at this point. I am a huge proponent of legalized marijuana, but for real. The people that do this are ruining it for the rest of us. Luckily it makes SO MUCH MONEY that I don't think we'll ever see it outlawed again, but. This is exactly what the pearl-clutching anti-pot people said would happen.
- bitlax 1y agoThe commenters here have simply assured me that allowing these people to live near me will expose my young children to marijuana smoke, and that I will not and should not have any recourse. Many of them are marijuana smokers themselves. They have no answers, to the extent they could even see this as a problem at all or understand my very common point of view. This seems like a no-brainer, and I will continue to vote and advocate against these policies, to the extent that I need to because most of the people I live near agree with me. Thanks all.
- saikia81 1y agostop smoking it then?
- bitlax 1y agotake your own advice
- thoroughburro 1y ago[flagged]
- furyofantares 1y agoThey are being sarcastic.
- danaris 1y agoThey are, however, falling afoul of the generalized version of Poe's Law [0]. If you want to satirize positions like this on the internet, you really need to leave some indication that that's what you're doing. If you just remain committed to the bit, you will look exactly like the very real assholes who believe these things unironically. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
- Atheros 1y agoHard disagree. Satire is never labeled as such. By identifying sarcasm or sardonicism, you would basically be saying that the comment is not inherently absurd enough to be immediately recognizable as laughably wrong. The whole point of sarcasm is to highlight absurdity. There will always be people who misinterpret this kind of writing. That doesn't make it bad writing; some people are just a little dumb. The writing isn't for them.
- danaris 1y ago> the comment is not inherently absurd enough to be immediately recognizable as laughably wrong But how do you achieve this when there are a significant number of real people willing to write even more absurd things with no irony whatsoever?
- furyofantares 1y agoSarcasm also doesn't work very well on HN generally. In this case though, it's more of a continuation of TFA which is overtly sarcastic/satirical.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- selfmodruntime 1y agoDifferent sources say 40 to 50% of homeless have substance abuse problems. A lot of people don't want addicts as neighbours.
- UncleMeat 1y agoA substantial reason why these people have substance addictions is because they are homeless and use substances to cope. Reducing the price of rent can prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place.
- bitlax 1y agoWhat mechanism of enforcement do I have when this person continues to use substances in their subsidized housing? How do I prevent my young children from smelling this person's marijuana? How do I prevent my young children from interacting with these people when they play outside?
- UncleMeat 1y agoPoor people are people. "My child should never have to interact with a person living in subsidized housing" is a rather remarkable claim. Is your plan simply to imprison all poor people?
- bitlax 1y ago> rather remarkable claim. Mundane actually. I want my children to play outdoors without interacting with drug users. Your perspective is skewed. > Is your plan simply to imprison all poor people? No, and this doesn't follow.
- UncleMeat 1y agoI do not know any other mechanism to ensure that your child never interacts with a poor person except to imprison them all.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y agoPoor person? Sure. Drug addict or mentally ill? No.
- PaulHoule 1y ago… or crazy. I know a lot of people who’ve struggled with homelessness and they (1) have serious mental health problems and (2) usually have no insight into them. Yes, I know the talking point that the median homeless person is not mentally ill, but for the sane homelessness is usually a temporary condition, for the insane it is chronic.
- UncleMeat 1y agoHomeless people are people. Society has an obligation to everybody, not just me. Unless your plan is "just imprison homeless people forever" then people are going to need be around homeless people while homelessness exists.
- welshwelsh 1y agoSociety has an obligation to nobody. Governments are only obligated to serve the taxpayers that fund them. Imprisoning homeless people is not an acceptable solution, because imprisonment costs taxpayer money. A better solution is to let the market work. If you can't afford the rent for a city, you shouldn't be allowed to be in that city at all, even in a prison cell. People who can't afford to live in an inhabited area should be permitted to camp in the wilderness.
- anal_reactor 1y agoHonestly, my European perspective is that a homeless person is someone who burnt through their entire support network - family, friends, state help. If they're mentally fit, then their choices landed them on the street, not my problem, be a fucking adult. If they're not mentally fit, then they should be sent to a mental institution, because they won't function in the society no matter what you do. Also, of course nobody wants to live with poor people. I don't buy this romantic image of poor people being fair citizens failed by the rest of the society. I moved into a poor neighborhood and immediately had my bike stolen, literally living the meme. Real estate prices are lower here exactly because it's a black immigrant neighborhood full of poor people.