9 ms·

Techies Are the New Puritans

91 points by mathattack 13y ago

aaronem 13y ago
> In the Puritan model of charity, the rich have an obligation to do good for the poor—but the poor also have an obligation to the rich, to try to be a useful part of the same society. The article's author not only disagrees, but considers this model so obviously erroneous that she doesn't see any need to explain what's wrong with it. I find this unhelpful, because it fails to explain why subsidizing people who contribute nothing to society, in such fashion as to provide an incentive to continue contributing nothing to society, is in any way a good idea.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Conversely, just because you're poor doesn't mean you contribute nothing to society.
- DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
  There's the problem of lock-out: how do you contribute usefully to society without some baseline to work from, and where your day-to-day activities are forced to be about the most basic level of survival?
  - fredgrott 13y ago
    It could be argued that the whole increase of drug use in USA is due to lockout and other effects
    - aaronem 13y ago
      Oh, it could, could it? Well, then, "lay on, Macduff! -- and damned be he who first cries, 'Hold, enough!'"
  - aaronem 13y ago
    Well, just off the top of my head, something like a new WPA seems like it'd be a decent start, considering the infrastructure maintenance problems I keep hearing about. Is that "workfare"? I've heard "workfare" is bad, although again I'm not really sure why.
    - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
      I have no objections to WPA-style programs, and think that likely would be a good solution. Heck, it worked once before. The problem is that in addition to having let our infrastructure decay, we've let our social infrastructure decay.
      - aaronem 13y ago
        That's no more an obstacle today than it was in 1935; the original WPA was an emergency measure, just as our notional revival would be.
  - basseq 13y ago
    "...where your day-to-day activities are forced to be about the most basic level of survival?" Isn't the purpose of so-called "subsidization" to avoid this? (Not that it necessarily works in practice.)
    - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
      There really aren't many homeless programs that subsidize living for a period where you can get back on your feet, in such a way as to not require that you stand in line for hours every day, so you can focus on finding a job, or similar. Many of them (eg, food stamps) cut benefits when you're unemployed homeless, and focus instead on at-risk employed people. Many kitchens require that you show up every day and spend large amounts of time on travel to-and-from, as well as waiting in line.
- benched 13y ago
  Nobody contributes nothing to society. Even if nothing else, the wretched of the earth offer those better off an opportunity to practice not being fuckfaces. In many philosophical traditions, that's a pretty big deal.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    Philosophical traditions, is it? How about "By the sweat of thy brow shalt thou earn thy daily bread"? And, while I'm at it, "The poor will always be with you"?
    - gaius 13y ago
      And Marx wrote "from each according to his ability" before "to each according to his need". How did non-contributors fare in Marxists states? Well they were sent to forced labour camps where they worked or they starved.
      - aaronem 13y ago
        I tend to consider the Soviet experiment a subset of the general Progressive one, which sheds no complimentary light on the latter -- but, for those who cleave to it, "no true Scotsman" seems spackle enough to cover the cracks.
- nvader 13y ago
  I tend to agree with you. I don't _disagree_ with the author, because I don't know what the author's point is. She decries the "puritan" worldview, but outside of pointing out that it is an old one, she does not really bother to say what is wrong with it.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "I find this unhelpful, because it fails to explain why subsidizing people who contribute nothing to society, in such fashion as to provide an incentive to continue contributing nothing to society, is in any way a good idea." That is the price of having a social safety net. You are not just subsidizing people who contribute nothing. Some day you might be in need of some help despite all your productivity.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    That seems a rather selfish way of looking at the matter, to say nothing of how you carefully ignore the dependent clause beginning 'in such fashion...' But, since you bring personalities into it: No one can eat pride, of course, and if I'm in a tight enough spot, I don't kid myself other than that I'll do what's needful to stay alive, and wait to earn back my self-respect until I can afford it again. But on the day I beg for succor, I hope I have the good fortune so to do from someone who respects me highly enough to let me work for what I need, instead of offering mere unearned largess by means of which to enhance his own opinion of himself at the cost of my humiliation.
- pron 13y ago
  She doesn't explain because because this model really is so obviously erroneous, but only after you accumulate enough experiences in life, or, if you want a shortcut, after you read enough books written by those who have experienced a thing or two. Some things can't be explained in a few sentences, because they are not mathematically true, but happen to be true in this particular world of ours. Sometimes, it's hard to explain how the world really works; you have to experience it in the flesh, and it takes a while.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    You do me the compliment, sir, of mistaking me for a child, and I thank you for it. But perhaps you will consider that not everyone's experience leads to the same conclusions you draw from your own.
- smtddr 13y ago
  Isn't compassion for others and the desire to end others' suffering enough of a reason without any other incentive? If in a hypothetical conversation, someone said to me "They contribute nothing; they should all just die & starve or just get out of the way." ... my response would be that it's us, the people with wealth(or at least not living paycheck2paycheck) who have the most power to change society and allow it to support them somehow. I don't really know how exactly, but the first experiment I'd vote for is basic-income and see how that pans out.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    I cannot end my brother's suffering. Only he can do that. The most I can do is offer help, if he'll have it. On that point: Regarding someone as worthless, that is, not only unable to contribute but unable to become able to contribute, strikes me as rather less compassionate than contemptuous. I concede I once thought as you do, but only until, through sheer good fortune, I learned what I could accomplish and, in so doing, earned my own respect -- and found in that the necessary prerequisite to earning the respect of others. Better, I think, to offer my brother the opportunity to do likewise, than simply to presume that he lacks even the hope of ever so doing.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- parrotdoxical 13y ago
  Someone REALLY likes the sound of their own empty rhetoric. While that's all fine and dandy, you should probably be aware that you don't necessarily get a choice as to "subsidize" people who contribute nothing to society because it is possible for people to actually negate things from society, all the way down from petty thugs all the way up to crooked, lawyered-up execs and/or politicians. The difference is that the latter gets to pay their way out of their transgressions to society (often times at a rate that still makes it profitable to rob society) while the former get the societal brunt and blame for society's ills. That's not to say that the former group are saints, but 1) they have systematic disadvantages that actually prevent any current legal implementations of a free market from providing for them and 2) once incarcerated, they actually end up costing society in a far more permanent way (up to $167k/yr in NYC). So, even if you disregarded how totally wrongheaded your argument on a sociopolitical level, it also shows a pretty flimsy lack of substance on a quantitative level. You WILL pay for poverty one way or another. You can't magically incentivize it out of existence with a free market, so don't whine about it by thinking about it as subsidization. Think of it more as insurance, at the very least.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    Empty rhetoric, indeed! You seem to have attended little, and understood less, of what I've written today. Perhaps you'll unhook the stimulus-response apparatus that sits in front of your language parser, and actually read my comments, or at least a few of the shorter ones? Should you decide to do so, I'll be glad to engage you in discussion.
    - parrotdoxical 13y ago
      Nah, I understand all of what you've written, I just find it sophomoric and pretty poorly thought out. I'll be glad to engage you in discussion once YOU mentally mature past the age of fourteen.
- sbov 13y ago
  Note that sometimes society doesn't let them contribute in ways you're probably thinking of. I have a friend who recently got a job at a company that works to deport immigrants who have committed some sort of crime. On the face of things they try to give them hope, but they mostly give false hope, don't provide the information they need, and make holding a job impossible. Once a month they will visit home "sometime next week" - and the person must be at home, which means an indeterminate amount of time off - maybe a week, maybe two. They ask them to come into their offices at 9am and don't see them until 6pm, if at all - maybe they ask them to come back tomorrow. He's in the process of finding a new job, as the job is misadvertised as helping immigrants. Especially as an immigrant himself, he hates working there.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    No doubt, too, this is far from the only such travesty. For those responsible, I prescribe public flogging -- lest this statement be mistaken for some sort of metaphor, as is regrettably common in these parts, let me say that by "public flogging" I mean that they be taken in tumbrils to the handiest public square, there to be tied to a post and administered ten lashes apiece at the least; for repeat offenders, the gallows should serve. Barbaric, you say? Do you then contend that the actions, which render such punishment meet, are any less barbaric? Which is worse, then? -- to lay open a man's back in answer to his crimes, and stretch his neck should he prove obdurate? Or to leave him grind his fellow men into the dust by trickery and deceit, and grow fat on the proceeds of their suffering? Or shall we handle him with kid gloves? -- as others here have rightly noted, a rich man rarely fears prison, and imprisonment itself carries great cost -- but let him once see his fellow criminal hauled down from the post with his back in bloody tatters, and you give him mightily to consider how best to save himself from a similar fate!
mratzloff 13y ago
Techies like to think of themselves as different from the very wealthy, but many of our attitudes are very similar and most techies aspire to join their ranks. There's a persistent belief in common with the wealthy that we have earned, solely through our hard work and perseverance, our position in society. Never mind the advantages we had along the way.
- lbrandy 13y ago
  Your comment is good and worth reading, but your opening line is unfortunate especially in light of what happened in the 15 minutes following. Just remove that line. I won't tell anyone.
  - mratzloff 13y ago
    Thanks. The thread got a lot more up votes after my comment. ;-)
    - larrys 13y ago
      "larrys" law states that a comment that "larrys" replies to and all the parent comments get automatic up votes.
  - larrys 13y ago
    With respect to the line that was removed, if anyone is curious, it had said something like "I suspect this is why it didn't get many upvotes". Or similar iirc. But to my actual point. Upvotes or downvotes on HN vary from the time of day to the way the headline is written (which will attract different groups of "techies" or whatever) and possibly the age group of the people who decide to take notice. Not to mention that there are non techies who read HN and so forth. I don't think you can make a statement, as is often done, trying to characterize a typical HN reader or poster. Because nobody is taking a poll of the entire group only the group at a snapshot in time and only then based on something that attracted that particular group to make comments and/or vote.
- n72 13y ago
thenerdfiles 13y ago
Do you think technology is going to take over the world? How do questions like this factor into this class warfare?
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
  We already get the gist here. It has become imperative that we consciously strive to add "humanism" to our practices: human-centric this, human-readable that... Many of us have to be reminded to be nice — and there's a positive trend between circumstantial ethics and hours spent in front of the computer. Non-technologists fear that technologists have lost their humanity, and thus incur an air of arrogance. That's the point here. Most of them do not want (1) welfare from the tech hierarchy, and some of them do not want to participate in this arbitrary hierarchy (2) because of their aesthetic views on technology overall or (3) because of their lack of education regarding the subject.
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    > "Non-technologists fear that technologists have lost their humanity, and thus incur an air of arrogance." From the general views commonly espoused on this forum and elsewhere, this seems like a legitimate fear. I do not believe it's fair to color these people as luddites or uninformed.
    - thenerdfiles 13y ago
      I agree that it's not fair, in principle. However, we must mention that the quality of education in the U.S. implies that a non-negligible population is at least underinformed*. We should not ignore the historical and political context here: Democracy as implemented by the U.S., given the motivations of market capitalism, has not been working; and this discussion may very well be the result of that failure.
      - potatolicious 13y ago
        I'm not sure how the quality of education relates. A large portion of the population is underinformed about technology, sure, but I don't think this is what we're talking about? Your original post mentioned that we must consciously add humanism to what we do, and non-technologists fear that we have lost our humanity. My point is that this fear is not unjustified, considering how so many of us (evidently, based on discussions that happen around here) look down upon non-technologists and will readily throw them to the wolves. Regardless of one's fear of technology (whether for good reason or for lack of it), the fear of technologists is IMO rational based on my own observations of people in the industry. tl;dr: From watching HN discussions, some of us are fucking scary. I fear them.
gaius 13y ago
Conservatism? Reagan? Utter nonsense. Around the time of Reagan, the Soviet Empire was still shipping people like that to the gulags. North Korea still does, so Pyongyang can be pristine. It's "progressives", not right-wingers, who are the problem here.
- notahacker 13y ago
  Do you believe the Silicon Valley professionals the article criticises for expressing their disgust with the homeless are more likely to be big advocates of "self reliance" and "small government", or Marxist totalitarians?
  - gaius 13y ago
    I think they would accurately be described as Champagne Socialists or if you prefer Limousine Liberals. Almost literally with their private luxury Google buses.
Crito 13y ago
I suppose the elephant in the room is whether or not 'techies' are repulsed by the homeless because accusations like "...[they] spit, urinate, taunt you, sell drugs, get rowdy..." have a basis in reality. I don't live in SF, so I can only go off what I hear (from the accused 'techies', so I'm only getting one side of the propaganda here..), but what I have heard is that 1) the homeless really seem to love SF, preferring it to perhaps any other city, and 2) there is at least a segment of the homeless population that engages in extremely anti-social behavior (specifically I have heard stories of BART escalators regularly being shut down because the homeless shit on them). (For background: most of my experience with the homeless comes from my interactions with them while working at a soup kitchen in a small city in Pennsylvania (those interactions were universally pleasant), and my interactions with them in Philadelphia (where an aversion to the homeless and an aversion to being mugged have a very close relationship...))
- cynicalkane 13y ago
  Add "verbal and sexual harassment of women in the street" to that list.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Yes, some of these incidents even get national coverage (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/naked-subway-man-video_n_3423310.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/naked-subway-man-vi...). I can't speak to whether these sort of incidents get an exaggerated or unfair amount of coverage, or if these really are common problems. Of course either way, these sort of incidents/articles surely shape public perception; I don't think we can make this as simple as "Techies are nouveau riche who like to kick 'em when they're down".
    - elwell 13y ago
      they are common
    - smtddr 13y ago
      They do get an exaggerated coverage. It's really not that common. I've been riding BART to/from SF for my techie-job for 6+ years and I haven't seen anything like that. The most interesting thing I've seen in person is this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGkbJlmhI90 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGkbJlmhI90 Oh and I did see a guy yell at and punch a window on the BART train once for no apparent reason. It was late at night so not many people on the train but the few passengers were definitely freaked out. Window didn't even crack and he punched it HARD.
borgopants 13y ago
As a software engineer, this problem has been prevalent in my mind lately. My main question is this: how can we, as members of the technology industry, use our skills to help solve the homelessness problem? I've seen a lot of people suggesting that learning to code is a solution, which feels like a very disconnected kind of response. If you're trying to stay warm and survive from day to day, buying a computer is surely the lowest priority. Another solution is raising awareness via the web. In the social media era though, this has the negative of making people feel like they've done something by sharing a link or upvoting a story without actually making an actual difference, so I don't feel like this, by itself, is a great solution. The disparity between people in the technology industry and the homeless is so huge, and noticeable, in areas like San Francisco that I feel it is our responsibility to give back and try and make a difference somehow. What are some ways that this could be achieved?
- EliRivers 13y ago
  Hassle your political representatives, educate the public as to why so many of them are in effect turkeys voting for Christmas, go digging and expose the ways the small citizen is relentlessly screwed over by the rich and powerful (and then publicise it, in a way Joe Shmoe can get on board with), volunteer with local homeless charities, turn up at regional council meetings and loudly ask them again and again and again what they're doing to help these people rather than just move then on, interrupt when you hear people being dismissive or stating glibly "they should just learn to code".
- SDGT 13y ago
  If a homeless individual can approach me in an honest, respectful manner, I'd be more inclined to help. This has not yet been the case. I prefer to reward civility with civility.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    I bet it has but you had no idea they were homeless. Crazy antisocial people often become homeless and are the visible side of it, but the vast majority of homeless people are not antisocial or crazy.
67726e 13y ago
Is the relation really all that surprising to people? We programmers tend to be a fairly self-reliant bunch. Ever told someone "RTFM"? Many of us are self-motivated, and probably self-taught to at least a certain degree. You think "It's just so easy, anyone can do it if they put in the work" and as a result you see unsuccessful, downtrodden people and think they just didn't want to put in their 10.000 hours like the rest of us.
- EliRivers 13y ago
  We programmers tend to be a fairly self-reliant bunch. For a very special meaning of "self-reliant". The majority of programmers I know could not produce their own food, make their own clothes, build their own shelter, treat their own illnesses. These are the fundamentals of life; how "self-reliant" can someone claim to be without being able to do these (I can't do these either, but I'm not claiming self-reliance)? We can play into an illusion of "self-reliance" only because these foundations and so much more have been made so pervasive and efficient.
  - 67726e 13y ago
    Of course I'm speaking in terms of our work. I'm not claiming I could kill a cow and render it nor knit a scarf nor do much more than basic first-aid. My point is that there is a certain culture of being self-reliant, which is perfectly demonstrated by the phrase RTFM. We're saying the knowledge is out there, I've figured it out, why can't you? The truth is, we are all just standing on the shoulders of giants. One cannot truly claim to be purely a product of one's own hard-work and effort, because others helped you get there, but the idea that you can figure out anything be reading the manual, the source, by rubber-ducking, and so on relates very well to the Puritanical notion that one's place in life is earned through hard-work and thus just.
  - ars_technician 13y ago
    That's not what self-relaince is. Nobody is self-reliant by that definition because even people trained for wilderness survival will die from some mundane thing without modern medicine. Self-reliance is when you can contribute enough to society on your own to get the things required to live in return without hand-outs.
roin 13y ago
This article paints SV with too broad a brush, but this is a big problem. There is a tendency here to oversimplify really complex problems. That's a good thing when you need to take a leap of faith and start a company to tackle those problems, but a bad thing when you lack empathy for less fortunate people around you. Guess what, most of these people have struggles that we can't begin to understand. A lot are dealing with mental health issues that are more debilitating than anything you or I will ever have to deal with. I live on Market St., and I'm as guilty as anyone of becoming numb to the homeless living there. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that anyone can grab a Rails tutorial and become a six-figure engineer within a few years just because we've seen it done.
negamax 13y ago
I totally see a build up to 'Occupy Silicon Valley' around the next bust. Unlike bankers, techies would gladly join and even encourage the movement if it has any merit.
k_kelly 13y ago
Cities that don't care for their homeless tend not to have a homeless problem. SF actually has relatively great care for homeless people compared to the majority of the US. Therefore a lot more homeless end up there. The homeless problem is striking because it's almost entirely artificial. If SF didn't care for it's homeless, and didn't rent control areas to allow affordable housing it would probably be like midtown manhattan. That's boring to a lot of residents and unfortunate for the homeless, but where's the tax money coming from to allow the status quo to continue? No one seems to be debating the value of social programs, but what's the advantage of the tenderloin? It's been a decaying mess for generations when it could be a profitable, vibrant part of the city which would be beneficial for wealthy and poor alike.
- CreRecombinase 13y ago
  What part of midtown Manhattan is beneficial for the poor? Also, what makes you think NYC doesn't have a homeless problem? Unless of course your definition of "homeless problem" is: "homeless people are bothering me", and not "homeless people don't have a warm place to sleep".
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Cities that don't care for their homeless tend not to have a homeless problem. The same is not true of countries.
- xargs 13y ago
  If folks want to really understand the history, demographics, socioeconomic issues, and legality/zoning/civics of the Tenderloin, they should read this article: http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/arise-tenderloin http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/arise-tender... ^ It's easily the most accurate, holistic, and honest piece on the Tenderloin I've ever come across.
tehwalrus 13y ago
Comments like this are a bit snobbish[1], but they're hardly puritanical. America doesn't need "new puritans", it is already full of religious extremists who think that their personal moral code must be implemented in law for everyone to follow. The Puritans founded pre-USA America, and they haven't gone anywhere. [1] I'm not saying what they said wasn't wrong; it was. I'm just saying it isn't "puritanism".
masterleep 13y ago
Having to dodge shit and vomit in the alleys of San Francisco is disgusting. It is as simple as that. One would think that with the enormous resources devoted to the poor, we could at least expect not to have to step on shit. But one would be wrong, due to the incredible inefficiency and corruption of our one party state.
danso 13y ago
Am I not seeing the "next page" link? The subhead for this article is: > Silicon Valley's ugly treatment of homeless people has a long history. And the only "history" I see is: > Greg Gopman, who is the CEO of a startup that organizes hackathons, wrote this on his Facebook page Let's pretend there were a dozen such ugly comments in the past year from people who happen to live in Silicon Valley. What does that say about tech being the new Puritans? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Don't get me wrong, I think the quoted techie sounds quite disagreeable. And yes, I'm sure there are many more techies who think like him. But I don't see this as a "techie" problem. I see it as a above-average-income mindset that is more impacted by the amount of money and privilege you have rather than what industry you acquired such things in.
digitalzombie 13y ago
I'm sure they wouldn't feel the same way if the tech industry go to shit and they end up homeless. Having a degree and/or a job in demand doesn't give them the right to look down upon the unfortunates. I believe there are a huge population of veteran homeless too. It's not like all them chose to be homeless. They're just assholes that are sitting around bitching. They're not the ones that are going to try to solve the homeless problem they're the ones that try to hide the problem. They're worst, they have no solution to this problem and not willing to do anything. I find it weird that they used religious allegory but their religious figures such as Jesus would have help those in need not whine about it.
- aaronem 13y ago
  Christ fed the hungry. He did not petition the Pharisaical council to establish a steering committee to look toward the establishment of a working group to consider the possibility of soliciting public input from all interested stakeholders with the eventual goal of producing a synergistic plan for improving the condition of the urban disadvantaged.
  - prodigal_erik 13y ago
    Supposedly having magical powers, he was also not limited by inadequate opt-in contributions from a minority of society. For all of history this has been a problem too big for charity to solve.
    - aaronem 13y ago
      "The poor will always be with you." It is no accident that 'utopia' transliterates to "no-where", or that even Christ never promised "pie in the sky" but that he made sure to add "when you die". No post-scarcity without Singularity, if you will.
etanazir 13y ago
What if everyone in your world is simply your own soul from a different point of view.
hkmurakami 13y ago
didn't someone on hn pose this exact analogy (to Puritans) a couple of days ago? sometimes I wonder if editors lurk on hn/reddit for headline ideas (the writers themselves need more turnaround time than 2 days I imagine)
pg 13y ago
This all based on a tiny amount of anecdotal evidence: one post and a reply by his friend. It's like a pyramid balanced on its apex. The interesting thing about this article, to me, is what it shows about how much demand there is for this idea.
- Segmentation 13y ago
  > This all based on a tiny amount of anecdotal evidence: one post and a reply by his friend. Maybe, but the reaction on Twitter and in this thread is proof that a lot of techies have this puritan attitude toward homeless. The blog was being sensational to expose this.
Spooky23 13y ago
Funny. The Puritans are closer to the do-gooders than the general population. Puritans left Europe to form the perfect society, which they defined around their religious practice. They had all the answers and were building the city on the hill. The system worked, as long as you were an adherent. The way you solve these problems is by acting at a higher level to address root causes. Advocating for someone's "right" to shit their pants and disrupt public spaces is ridiculous, but it's also easy to do -- offering pity is always easy to do. It's not as easy to get treatment for mental health issues or to fund drug programs or to address the more systemic issues that result in a screaming maniac running around in the street. Techie or not, I have a right to use public spaces that should be preserved. My son should be able to work in a public library. My family should be able to walk down the street without fear.
- fiter 13y ago
  > My family should be able to walk down the street without fear. I think we need to be extremely cautious when we think things like this. I'm not sure everyone's fear is well-founded. It seems like we can't eliminate risk, so we need to have this reasonable debate about what we'll tolerate. I don't believe in removing these people, but let's have anyone in the area behaving some fair rules. No physical assault sounds good. Sounds like maybe we agree? I just haven't had that physical assault problem, so to me it seems like I can walk down the street without fear.
  - Spooky23 13y ago
    I agree -- I don't mean we need a complete police state. Homeless people have just as much right to be in a public space as anyone. But as an example, in my city a bunch of aggressive panhandlers will taunt and intimidate you between the entrance to a hospital near me and one of the parking areas. When my sister worked at this hospital, it was very intimidating to have to run through a gauntlet of these people, it was really scary to be running a gauntlet of deranged drunks.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
spikels 13y ago
Ideology can make you blind to problems obvious to those with an open mind. We clearly have a serious problems with homelessness in SF - just ask anyone from out of town. And despite the best intentions of many (and the self-interest of some) and the dedication of tons of resources the problem has only gotten worse. Blaming techies or conservatives is frankly ridiculous. Everyone should be ashamed.
rgrieselhuber 13y ago
This is a difficult conversation because any statement you make about the real problems facing workers in downtown can easily get you lumped into a category of people who hate the poor. There is no question that disrespectful attitudes toward the poor and homeless in any city betrays a shocking lack of empathy about the struggles that they encounter. The flip side is that there are real problems facing workers (tech and otherwise) in these neighborhoods and just labeling anyone who complains about them as some kind of bigot neither cures that person of any perceived bigotry, it also does not solve the core problems that people who live in those neighborhoods are facing: extreme poverty, mental illnesses, rising rent costs and more. One of my co-workers is a woman and she is harassed daily as she walks into our office, to the point that we are moving offices as a result. The comments she endures are sickening and I've witnessed it myself. Interestingly, it happens much less when I walk down Market Street with her. But what I've noticed is that it's not the homeless who make those comments. There are multiple groups all clustered together and it combines to create an unsettling experience for people who walk through the neighborhood. There are the homeless, who generally seem to keep to themselves and are preoccupied with staying warm, begging for food / money, etc. Then there are the apparently mentally ill, who are likely also homeless, who can be found screaming in the street, disrobing and more. There are also obvious drug addicts - I watched a man lick a needle and inject it into an open sore on his leg in broad daylight. Then there are the loiterers, dealers and gamblers on the street. These dudes actually are the most abusive toward women. They are the ones who make inappropriate comments toward my co-worker and other women I see walking down the street. They yell at people, threaten them, and attack one another. Combine all this with the smell of feces, urine and trash littered all over the street and you do genuinely wonder why it's so bad. I can't think of a single other city in America that I've visited that has this many problems. Some of the core causes appear to be an impenetrable and growing wealth gap, lack of available services for those in need, lack of proactive police coverage (but please, no military-wannabe cops need apply) and ongoing gentrification. In the Tenderloin, I would almost characterize it as an active rebellion against gentrification, where long-time residents feel the need to intimidate the tech workers moving in to set up new offices, coffee shops, etc. Call it the Scooby Doo strategy. It's a difficult situation because on the one hand I completely sympathize with those who are seeing their ability to afford living in older neighborhoods vanish before their eyes. On the other hand, tech workers are often portrayed as entitled tech hipster bros who just want a clean street to walk down on their way to the new Blue Bottle cafe. The reality is that the actual "tech workers" who are trying to make a living also includes women, men and women with families and new immigrants to the US. Because of the money some of these folks earn, it's easy enough to demonize them when one jackass makes inappropriate comments on Facebook. But the same Valleywag bloggers who demonize the tech hipster bros also can't be seen actually doing anything to make a difference on their own and probably share the same thoughts as they walk toward a new cafe to work on their next piece, this one already forgotten.
memracom 13y ago
How on earth do these people know that the ones spitting, urinating and taunting are homeless? In some cultures spitting in public is acceptable so possibly some of these people are immigrants who haven't yet learned to fit in. Most will eventually get the message and stop spitting. Urinating in public is a classic sign of people being drunk in public. Most of those people have the money to spend on drinks in bars so I doubt they are homeless. As for taunting, that sounds like mental illness to me. And the same goes if someone is spitting at other people. Now I will admit that it is a common side effect of mental illness to be homeless, but unless you actually know that someone is homeless for a fact, you are likely lumping multiple groups of people together and basically saying "This city needs to do something about all the people on the streets who are not like me". Seems to me like better support for the mentally ill would go a long way to solve the problem, and for those who just want to sweep the problem away by moving the mentally ill somewhere else, that might be a good idea. Bringing people closer to nature in a country setting and giving them responsibility to care for farm animals, and gardens, are all known ways to heal mental illness. Sounds like these people need to put their money where there mouth is. Start an Indiegogo project to help mentally ill people in a country setting and donate your money to that rather than complaining.

91 points by mathattack 13y ago

> In the Puritan model of charity, the rich have an obligation to do good for the poor—but the poor also have an obligation to the rich, to try to be a useful part of the same society. The article's author not only disagrees, but considers this model so obviously erroneous that she doesn't see any need to explain what's wrong with it. I find this unhelpful, because it fails to explain why subsidizing people who contribute nothing to society, in such fashion as to provide an incentive to continue contributing nothing to society, is in any way a good idea.

toomuchtodo 13y ago
Conversely, just because you're poor doesn't mean you contribute nothing to society.
DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
There's the problem of lock-out: how do you contribute usefully to society without some baseline to work from, and where your day-to-day activities are forced to be about the most basic level of survival?
- fredgrott 13y ago
  It could be argued that the whole increase of drug use in USA is due to lockout and other effects
  - aaronem 13y ago
    Oh, it could, could it? Well, then, "lay on, Macduff! -- and damned be he who first cries, 'Hold, enough!'"
- aaronem 13y ago
  Well, just off the top of my head, something like a new WPA seems like it'd be a decent start, considering the infrastructure maintenance problems I keep hearing about. Is that "workfare"? I've heard "workfare" is bad, although again I'm not really sure why.
  - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
    I have no objections to WPA-style programs, and think that likely would be a good solution. Heck, it worked once before. The problem is that in addition to having let our infrastructure decay, we've let our social infrastructure decay.
    - aaronem 13y ago
      That's no more an obstacle today than it was in 1935; the original WPA was an emergency measure, just as our notional revival would be.
- basseq 13y ago
  "...where your day-to-day activities are forced to be about the most basic level of survival?" Isn't the purpose of so-called "subsidization" to avoid this? (Not that it necessarily works in practice.)
  - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
    There really aren't many homeless programs that subsidize living for a period where you can get back on your feet, in such a way as to not require that you stand in line for hours every day, so you can focus on finding a job, or similar. Many of them (eg, food stamps) cut benefits when you're unemployed homeless, and focus instead on at-risk employed people. Many kitchens require that you show up every day and spend large amounts of time on travel to-and-from, as well as waiting in line.
benched 13y ago
Nobody contributes nothing to society. Even if nothing else, the wretched of the earth offer those better off an opportunity to practice not being fuckfaces. In many philosophical traditions, that's a pretty big deal.
- aaronem 13y ago
  Philosophical traditions, is it? How about "By the sweat of thy brow shalt thou earn thy daily bread"? And, while I'm at it, "The poor will always be with you"?
  - gaius 13y ago
    And Marx wrote "from each according to his ability" before "to each according to his need". How did non-contributors fare in Marxists states? Well they were sent to forced labour camps where they worked or they starved.
    - aaronem 13y ago
      I tend to consider the Soviet experiment a subset of the general Progressive one, which sheds no complimentary light on the latter -- but, for those who cleave to it, "no true Scotsman" seems spackle enough to cover the cracks.
nvader 13y ago
I tend to agree with you. I don't _disagree_ with the author, because I don't know what the author's point is. She decries the "puritan" worldview, but outside of pointing out that it is an old one, she does not really bother to say what is wrong with it.
betterunix 13y ago
"I find this unhelpful, because it fails to explain why subsidizing people who contribute nothing to society, in such fashion as to provide an incentive to continue contributing nothing to society, is in any way a good idea." That is the price of having a social safety net. You are not just subsidizing people who contribute nothing. Some day you might be in need of some help despite all your productivity.
- aaronem 13y ago
  That seems a rather selfish way of looking at the matter, to say nothing of how you carefully ignore the dependent clause beginning 'in such fashion...' But, since you bring personalities into it: No one can eat pride, of course, and if I'm in a tight enough spot, I don't kid myself other than that I'll do what's needful to stay alive, and wait to earn back my self-respect until I can afford it again. But on the day I beg for succor, I hope I have the good fortune so to do from someone who respects me highly enough to let me work for what I need, instead of offering mere unearned largess by means of which to enhance his own opinion of himself at the cost of my humiliation.
pron 13y ago
She doesn't explain because because this model really is so obviously erroneous, but only after you accumulate enough experiences in life, or, if you want a shortcut, after you read enough books written by those who have experienced a thing or two. Some things can't be explained in a few sentences, because they are not mathematically true, but happen to be true in this particular world of ours. Sometimes, it's hard to explain how the world really works; you have to experience it in the flesh, and it takes a while.
- aaronem 13y ago
  You do me the compliment, sir, of mistaking me for a child, and I thank you for it. But perhaps you will consider that not everyone's experience leads to the same conclusions you draw from your own.
smtddr 13y ago
Isn't compassion for others and the desire to end others' suffering enough of a reason without any other incentive? If in a hypothetical conversation, someone said to me "They contribute nothing; they should all just die & starve or just get out of the way." ... my response would be that it's us, the people with wealth(or at least not living paycheck2paycheck) who have the most power to change society and allow it to support them somehow. I don't really know how exactly, but the first experiment I'd vote for is basic-income and see how that pans out.
- aaronem 13y ago
  I cannot end my brother's suffering. Only he can do that. The most I can do is offer help, if he'll have it. On that point: Regarding someone as worthless, that is, not only unable to contribute but unable to become able to contribute, strikes me as rather less compassionate than contemptuous. I concede I once thought as you do, but only until, through sheer good fortune, I learned what I could accomplish and, in so doing, earned my own respect -- and found in that the necessary prerequisite to earning the respect of others. Better, I think, to offer my brother the opportunity to do likewise, than simply to presume that he lacks even the hope of ever so doing.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
parrotdoxical 13y ago
Someone REALLY likes the sound of their own empty rhetoric. While that's all fine and dandy, you should probably be aware that you don't necessarily get a choice as to "subsidize" people who contribute nothing to society because it is possible for people to actually negate things from society, all the way down from petty thugs all the way up to crooked, lawyered-up execs and/or politicians. The difference is that the latter gets to pay their way out of their transgressions to society (often times at a rate that still makes it profitable to rob society) while the former get the societal brunt and blame for society's ills. That's not to say that the former group are saints, but 1) they have systematic disadvantages that actually prevent any current legal implementations of a free market from providing for them and 2) once incarcerated, they actually end up costing society in a far more permanent way (up to $167k/yr in NYC). So, even if you disregarded how totally wrongheaded your argument on a sociopolitical level, it also shows a pretty flimsy lack of substance on a quantitative level. You WILL pay for poverty one way or another. You can't magically incentivize it out of existence with a free market, so don't whine about it by thinking about it as subsidization. Think of it more as insurance, at the very least.
- aaronem 13y ago
  Empty rhetoric, indeed! You seem to have attended little, and understood less, of what I've written today. Perhaps you'll unhook the stimulus-response apparatus that sits in front of your language parser, and actually read my comments, or at least a few of the shorter ones? Should you decide to do so, I'll be glad to engage you in discussion.
  - parrotdoxical 13y ago
    Nah, I understand all of what you've written, I just find it sophomoric and pretty poorly thought out. I'll be glad to engage you in discussion once YOU mentally mature past the age of fourteen.
sbov 13y ago
Note that sometimes society doesn't let them contribute in ways you're probably thinking of. I have a friend who recently got a job at a company that works to deport immigrants who have committed some sort of crime. On the face of things they try to give them hope, but they mostly give false hope, don't provide the information they need, and make holding a job impossible. Once a month they will visit home "sometime next week" - and the person must be at home, which means an indeterminate amount of time off - maybe a week, maybe two. They ask them to come into their offices at 9am and don't see them until 6pm, if at all - maybe they ask them to come back tomorrow. He's in the process of finding a new job, as the job is misadvertised as helping immigrants. Especially as an immigrant himself, he hates working there.
- aaronem 13y ago
  No doubt, too, this is far from the only such travesty. For those responsible, I prescribe public flogging -- lest this statement be mistaken for some sort of metaphor, as is regrettably common in these parts, let me say that by "public flogging" I mean that they be taken in tumbrils to the handiest public square, there to be tied to a post and administered ten lashes apiece at the least; for repeat offenders, the gallows should serve. Barbaric, you say? Do you then contend that the actions, which render such punishment meet, are any less barbaric? Which is worse, then? -- to lay open a man's back in answer to his crimes, and stretch his neck should he prove obdurate? Or to leave him grind his fellow men into the dust by trickery and deceit, and grow fat on the proceeds of their suffering? Or shall we handle him with kid gloves? -- as others here have rightly noted, a rich man rarely fears prison, and imprisonment itself carries great cost -- but let him once see his fellow criminal hauled down from the post with his back in bloody tatters, and you give him mightily to consider how best to save himself from a similar fate!

mratzloff 13y ago

Techies like to think of themselves as different from the very wealthy, but many of our attitudes are very similar and most techies aspire to join their ranks. There's a persistent belief in common with the wealthy that we have earned, solely through our hard work and perseverance, our position in society. Never mind the advantages we had along the way.

lbrandy 13y ago
Your comment is good and worth reading, but your opening line is unfortunate especially in light of what happened in the 15 minutes following. Just remove that line. I won't tell anyone.
- mratzloff 13y ago
  Thanks. The thread got a lot more up votes after my comment. ;-)
  - larrys 13y ago
    "larrys" law states that a comment that "larrys" replies to and all the parent comments get automatic up votes.
- larrys 13y ago
  With respect to the line that was removed, if anyone is curious, it had said something like "I suspect this is why it didn't get many upvotes". Or similar iirc. But to my actual point. Upvotes or downvotes on HN vary from the time of day to the way the headline is written (which will attract different groups of "techies" or whatever) and possibly the age group of the people who decide to take notice. Not to mention that there are non techies who read HN and so forth. I don't think you can make a statement, as is often done, trying to characterize a typical HN reader or poster. Because nobody is taking a poll of the entire group only the group at a snapshot in time and only then based on something that attracted that particular group to make comments and/or vote.
n72 13y ago

thenerdfiles 13y ago

Do you think technology is going to take over the world? How do questions like this factor into this class warfare?

thenerdfiles 13y ago
We already get the gist here. It has become imperative that we consciously strive to add "humanism" to our practices: human-centric this, human-readable that... Many of us have to be reminded to be nice — and there's a positive trend between circumstantial ethics and hours spent in front of the computer. Non-technologists fear that technologists have lost their humanity, and thus incur an air of arrogance. That's the point here. Most of them do not want (1) welfare from the tech hierarchy, and some of them do not want to participate in this arbitrary hierarchy (2) because of their aesthetic views on technology overall or (3) because of their lack of education regarding the subject.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  > "Non-technologists fear that technologists have lost their humanity, and thus incur an air of arrogance." From the general views commonly espoused on this forum and elsewhere, this seems like a legitimate fear. I do not believe it's fair to color these people as luddites or uninformed.
  - thenerdfiles 13y ago
    I agree that it's not fair, in principle. However, we must mention that the quality of education in the U.S. implies that a non-negligible population is at least underinformed*. We should not ignore the historical and political context here: Democracy as implemented by the U.S., given the motivations of market capitalism, has not been working; and this discussion may very well be the result of that failure.
    - potatolicious 13y ago
      I'm not sure how the quality of education relates. A large portion of the population is underinformed about technology, sure, but I don't think this is what we're talking about? Your original post mentioned that we must consciously add humanism to what we do, and non-technologists fear that we have lost our humanity. My point is that this fear is not unjustified, considering how so many of us (evidently, based on discussions that happen around here) look down upon non-technologists and will readily throw them to the wolves. Regardless of one's fear of technology (whether for good reason or for lack of it), the fear of technologists is IMO rational based on my own observations of people in the industry. tl;dr: From watching HN discussions, some of us are fucking scary. I fear them.

gaius 13y ago

Conservatism? Reagan? Utter nonsense. Around the time of Reagan, the Soviet Empire was still shipping people like that to the gulags. North Korea still does, so Pyongyang can be pristine. It's "progressives", not right-wingers, who are the problem here.

notahacker 13y ago
Do you believe the Silicon Valley professionals the article criticises for expressing their disgust with the homeless are more likely to be big advocates of "self reliance" and "small government", or Marxist totalitarians?
- gaius 13y ago
  I think they would accurately be described as Champagne Socialists or if you prefer Limousine Liberals. Almost literally with their private luxury Google buses.

Crito 13y ago

I suppose the elephant in the room is whether or not 'techies' are repulsed by the homeless because accusations like "...[they] spit, urinate, taunt you, sell drugs, get rowdy..." have a basis in reality. I don't live in SF, so I can only go off what I hear (from the accused 'techies', so I'm only getting one side of the propaganda here..), but what I have heard is that 1) the homeless really seem to love SF, preferring it to perhaps any other city, and 2) there is at least a segment of the homeless population that engages in extremely anti-social behavior (specifically I have heard stories of BART escalators regularly being shut down because the homeless shit on them). (For background: most of my experience with the homeless comes from my interactions with them while working at a soup kitchen in a small city in Pennsylvania (those interactions were universally pleasant), and my interactions with them in Philadelphia (where an aversion to the homeless and an aversion to being mugged have a very close relationship...))

cynicalkane 13y ago
Add "verbal and sexual harassment of women in the street" to that list.
- Crito 13y ago
  Yes, some of these incidents even get national coverage (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/naked-subway-man-video_n_3423310.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/naked-subway-man-vi...). I can't speak to whether these sort of incidents get an exaggerated or unfair amount of coverage, or if these really are common problems. Of course either way, these sort of incidents/articles surely shape public perception; I don't think we can make this as simple as "Techies are nouveau riche who like to kick 'em when they're down".
  - elwell 13y ago
    they are common
  - smtddr 13y ago
    They do get an exaggerated coverage. It's really not that common. I've been riding BART to/from SF for my techie-job for 6+ years and I haven't seen anything like that. The most interesting thing I've seen in person is this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGkbJlmhI90 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGkbJlmhI90 Oh and I did see a guy yell at and punch a window on the BART train once for no apparent reason. It was late at night so not many people on the train but the few passengers were definitely freaked out. Window didn't even crack and he punched it HARD.

borgopants 13y ago

As a software engineer, this problem has been prevalent in my mind lately. My main question is this: how can we, as members of the technology industry, use our skills to help solve the homelessness problem? I've seen a lot of people suggesting that learning to code is a solution, which feels like a very disconnected kind of response. If you're trying to stay warm and survive from day to day, buying a computer is surely the lowest priority. Another solution is raising awareness via the web. In the social media era though, this has the negative of making people feel like they've done something by sharing a link or upvoting a story without actually making an actual difference, so I don't feel like this, by itself, is a great solution. The disparity between people in the technology industry and the homeless is so huge, and noticeable, in areas like San Francisco that I feel it is our responsibility to give back and try and make a difference somehow. What are some ways that this could be achieved?

EliRivers 13y ago
Hassle your political representatives, educate the public as to why so many of them are in effect turkeys voting for Christmas, go digging and expose the ways the small citizen is relentlessly screwed over by the rich and powerful (and then publicise it, in a way Joe Shmoe can get on board with), volunteer with local homeless charities, turn up at regional council meetings and loudly ask them again and again and again what they're doing to help these people rather than just move then on, interrupt when you hear people being dismissive or stating glibly "they should just learn to code".
SDGT 13y ago
If a homeless individual can approach me in an honest, respectful manner, I'd be more inclined to help. This has not yet been the case. I prefer to reward civility with civility.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  I bet it has but you had no idea they were homeless. Crazy antisocial people often become homeless and are the visible side of it, but the vast majority of homeless people are not antisocial or crazy.

67726e 13y ago

Is the relation really all that surprising to people? We programmers tend to be a fairly self-reliant bunch. Ever told someone "RTFM"? Many of us are self-motivated, and probably self-taught to at least a certain degree. You think "It's just so easy, anyone can do it if they put in the work" and as a result you see unsuccessful, downtrodden people and think they just didn't want to put in their 10.000 hours like the rest of us.

EliRivers 13y ago
We programmers tend to be a fairly self-reliant bunch. For a very special meaning of "self-reliant". The majority of programmers I know could not produce their own food, make their own clothes, build their own shelter, treat their own illnesses. These are the fundamentals of life; how "self-reliant" can someone claim to be without being able to do these (I can't do these either, but I'm not claiming self-reliance)? We can play into an illusion of "self-reliance" only because these foundations and so much more have been made so pervasive and efficient.
- 67726e 13y ago
  Of course I'm speaking in terms of our work. I'm not claiming I could kill a cow and render it nor knit a scarf nor do much more than basic first-aid. My point is that there is a certain culture of being self-reliant, which is perfectly demonstrated by the phrase RTFM. We're saying the knowledge is out there, I've figured it out, why can't you? The truth is, we are all just standing on the shoulders of giants. One cannot truly claim to be purely a product of one's own hard-work and effort, because others helped you get there, but the idea that you can figure out anything be reading the manual, the source, by rubber-ducking, and so on relates very well to the Puritanical notion that one's place in life is earned through hard-work and thus just.
- ars_technician 13y ago
  That's not what self-relaince is. Nobody is self-reliant by that definition because even people trained for wilderness survival will die from some mundane thing without modern medicine. Self-reliance is when you can contribute enough to society on your own to get the things required to live in return without hand-outs.

roin 13y ago

This article paints SV with too broad a brush, but this is a big problem. There is a tendency here to oversimplify really complex problems. That's a good thing when you need to take a leap of faith and start a company to tackle those problems, but a bad thing when you lack empathy for less fortunate people around you. Guess what, most of these people have struggles that we can't begin to understand. A lot are dealing with mental health issues that are more debilitating than anything you or I will ever have to deal with. I live on Market St., and I'm as guilty as anyone of becoming numb to the homeless living there. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that anyone can grab a Rails tutorial and become a six-figure engineer within a few years just because we've seen it done.

negamax 13y ago

I totally see a build up to 'Occupy Silicon Valley' around the next bust. Unlike bankers, techies would gladly join and even encourage the movement if it has any merit.

k_kelly 13y ago

Cities that don't care for their homeless tend not to have a homeless problem. SF actually has relatively great care for homeless people compared to the majority of the US. Therefore a lot more homeless end up there. The homeless problem is striking because it's almost entirely artificial. If SF didn't care for it's homeless, and didn't rent control areas to allow affordable housing it would probably be like midtown manhattan. That's boring to a lot of residents and unfortunate for the homeless, but where's the tax money coming from to allow the status quo to continue? No one seems to be debating the value of social programs, but what's the advantage of the tenderloin? It's been a decaying mess for generations when it could be a profitable, vibrant part of the city which would be beneficial for wealthy and poor alike.

CreRecombinase 13y ago
What part of midtown Manhattan is beneficial for the poor? Also, what makes you think NYC doesn't have a homeless problem? Unless of course your definition of "homeless problem" is: "homeless people are bothering me", and not "homeless people don't have a warm place to sleep".
moocowduckquack 13y ago
Cities that don't care for their homeless tend not to have a homeless problem. The same is not true of countries.
xargs 13y ago
If folks want to really understand the history, demographics, socioeconomic issues, and legality/zoning/civics of the Tenderloin, they should read this article: http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/arise-tenderloin http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/arise-tender... ^ It's easily the most accurate, holistic, and honest piece on the Tenderloin I've ever come across.

tehwalrus 13y ago

Comments like this are a bit snobbish[1], but they're hardly puritanical. America doesn't need "new puritans", it is already full of religious extremists who think that their personal moral code must be implemented in law for everyone to follow. The Puritans founded pre-USA America, and they haven't gone anywhere. [1] I'm not saying what they said wasn't wrong; it was. I'm just saying it isn't "puritanism".

masterleep 13y ago

Having to dodge shit and vomit in the alleys of San Francisco is disgusting. It is as simple as that. One would think that with the enormous resources devoted to the poor, we could at least expect not to have to step on shit. But one would be wrong, due to the incredible inefficiency and corruption of our one party state.

danso 13y ago

Am I not seeing the "next page" link? The subhead for this article is: > Silicon Valley's ugly treatment of homeless people has a long history. And the only "history" I see is: > Greg Gopman, who is the CEO of a startup that organizes hackathons, wrote this on his Facebook page Let's pretend there were a dozen such ugly comments in the past year from people who happen to live in Silicon Valley. What does that say about tech being the new Puritans? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Don't get me wrong, I think the quoted techie sounds quite disagreeable. And yes, I'm sure there are many more techies who think like him. But I don't see this as a "techie" problem. I see it as a above-average-income mindset that is more impacted by the amount of money and privilege you have rather than what industry you acquired such things in.

digitalzombie 13y ago

I'm sure they wouldn't feel the same way if the tech industry go to shit and they end up homeless. Having a degree and/or a job in demand doesn't give them the right to look down upon the unfortunates. I believe there are a huge population of veteran homeless too. It's not like all them chose to be homeless. They're just assholes that are sitting around bitching. They're not the ones that are going to try to solve the homeless problem they're the ones that try to hide the problem. They're worst, they have no solution to this problem and not willing to do anything. I find it weird that they used religious allegory but their religious figures such as Jesus would have help those in need not whine about it.

aaronem 13y ago
Christ fed the hungry. He did not petition the Pharisaical council to establish a steering committee to look toward the establishment of a working group to consider the possibility of soliciting public input from all interested stakeholders with the eventual goal of producing a synergistic plan for improving the condition of the urban disadvantaged.
- prodigal_erik 13y ago
  Supposedly having magical powers, he was also not limited by inadequate opt-in contributions from a minority of society. For all of history this has been a problem too big for charity to solve.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    "The poor will always be with you." It is no accident that 'utopia' transliterates to "no-where", or that even Christ never promised "pie in the sky" but that he made sure to add "when you die". No post-scarcity without Singularity, if you will.

etanazir 13y ago

What if everyone in your world is simply your own soul from a different point of view.

hkmurakami 13y ago

didn't someone on hn pose this exact analogy (to Puritans) a couple of days ago? sometimes I wonder if editors lurk on hn/reddit for headline ideas (the writers themselves need more turnaround time than 2 days I imagine)

pg 13y ago

This all based on a tiny amount of anecdotal evidence: one post and a reply by his friend. It's like a pyramid balanced on its apex. The interesting thing about this article, to me, is what it shows about how much demand there is for this idea.

Segmentation 13y ago
> This all based on a tiny amount of anecdotal evidence: one post and a reply by his friend. Maybe, but the reaction on Twitter and in this thread is proof that a lot of techies have this puritan attitude toward homeless. The blog was being sensational to expose this.

Spooky23 13y ago

Funny. The Puritans are closer to the do-gooders than the general population. Puritans left Europe to form the perfect society, which they defined around their religious practice. They had all the answers and were building the city on the hill. The system worked, as long as you were an adherent. The way you solve these problems is by acting at a higher level to address root causes. Advocating for someone's "right" to shit their pants and disrupt public spaces is ridiculous, but it's also easy to do -- offering pity is always easy to do. It's not as easy to get treatment for mental health issues or to fund drug programs or to address the more systemic issues that result in a screaming maniac running around in the street. Techie or not, I have a right to use public spaces that should be preserved. My son should be able to work in a public library. My family should be able to walk down the street without fear.

fiter 13y ago
> My family should be able to walk down the street without fear. I think we need to be extremely cautious when we think things like this. I'm not sure everyone's fear is well-founded. It seems like we can't eliminate risk, so we need to have this reasonable debate about what we'll tolerate. I don't believe in removing these people, but let's have anyone in the area behaving some fair rules. No physical assault sounds good. Sounds like maybe we agree? I just haven't had that physical assault problem, so to me it seems like I can walk down the street without fear.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  I agree -- I don't mean we need a complete police state. Homeless people have just as much right to be in a public space as anyone. But as an example, in my city a bunch of aggressive panhandlers will taunt and intimidate you between the entrance to a hospital near me and one of the parking areas. When my sister worked at this hospital, it was very intimidating to have to run through a gauntlet of these people, it was really scary to be running a gauntlet of deranged drunks.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

spikels 13y ago

Ideology can make you blind to problems obvious to those with an open mind. We clearly have a serious problems with homelessness in SF - just ask anyone from out of town. And despite the best intentions of many (and the self-interest of some) and the dedication of tons of resources the problem has only gotten worse. Blaming techies or conservatives is frankly ridiculous. Everyone should be ashamed.

rgrieselhuber 13y ago

This is a difficult conversation because any statement you make about the real problems facing workers in downtown can easily get you lumped into a category of people who hate the poor. There is no question that disrespectful attitudes toward the poor and homeless in any city betrays a shocking lack of empathy about the struggles that they encounter. The flip side is that there are real problems facing workers (tech and otherwise) in these neighborhoods and just labeling anyone who complains about them as some kind of bigot neither cures that person of any perceived bigotry, it also does not solve the core problems that people who live in those neighborhoods are facing: extreme poverty, mental illnesses, rising rent costs and more. One of my co-workers is a woman and she is harassed daily as she walks into our office, to the point that we are moving offices as a result. The comments she endures are sickening and I've witnessed it myself. Interestingly, it happens much less when I walk down Market Street with her. But what I've noticed is that it's not the homeless who make those comments. There are multiple groups all clustered together and it combines to create an unsettling experience for people who walk through the neighborhood. There are the homeless, who generally seem to keep to themselves and are preoccupied with staying warm, begging for food / money, etc. Then there are the apparently mentally ill, who are likely also homeless, who can be found screaming in the street, disrobing and more. There are also obvious drug addicts - I watched a man lick a needle and inject it into an open sore on his leg in broad daylight. Then there are the loiterers, dealers and gamblers on the street. These dudes actually are the most abusive toward women. They are the ones who make inappropriate comments toward my co-worker and other women I see walking down the street. They yell at people, threaten them, and attack one another. Combine all this with the smell of feces, urine and trash littered all over the street and you do genuinely wonder why it's so bad. I can't think of a single other city in America that I've visited that has this many problems. Some of the core causes appear to be an impenetrable and growing wealth gap, lack of available services for those in need, lack of proactive police coverage (but please, no military-wannabe cops need apply) and ongoing gentrification. In the Tenderloin, I would almost characterize it as an active rebellion against gentrification, where long-time residents feel the need to intimidate the tech workers moving in to set up new offices, coffee shops, etc. Call it the Scooby Doo strategy. It's a difficult situation because on the one hand I completely sympathize with those who are seeing their ability to afford living in older neighborhoods vanish before their eyes. On the other hand, tech workers are often portrayed as entitled tech hipster bros who just want a clean street to walk down on their way to the new Blue Bottle cafe. The reality is that the actual "tech workers" who are trying to make a living also includes women, men and women with families and new immigrants to the US. Because of the money some of these folks earn, it's easy enough to demonize them when one jackass makes inappropriate comments on Facebook. But the same Valleywag bloggers who demonize the tech hipster bros also can't be seen actually doing anything to make a difference on their own and probably share the same thoughts as they walk toward a new cafe to work on their next piece, this one already forgotten.

memracom 13y ago

How on earth do these people know that the ones spitting, urinating and taunting are homeless? In some cultures spitting in public is acceptable so possibly some of these people are immigrants who haven't yet learned to fit in. Most will eventually get the message and stop spitting. Urinating in public is a classic sign of people being drunk in public. Most of those people have the money to spend on drinks in bars so I doubt they are homeless. As for taunting, that sounds like mental illness to me. And the same goes if someone is spitting at other people. Now I will admit that it is a common side effect of mental illness to be homeless, but unless you actually know that someone is homeless for a fact, you are likely lumping multiple groups of people together and basically saying "This city needs to do something about all the people on the streets who are not like me". Seems to me like better support for the mentally ill would go a long way to solve the problem, and for those who just want to sweep the problem away by moving the mentally ill somewhere else, that might be a good idea. Bringing people closer to nature in a country setting and giving them responsibility to care for farm animals, and gardens, are all known ways to heal mental illness. Sounds like these people need to put their money where there mouth is. Start an Indiegogo project to help mentally ill people in a country setting and donate your money to that rather than complaining.