This is some fucked up anti-homeless propaganda. You sound like one of those sociopaths on nextdoor, even if you end it with a call to action that would help them. The damage you do by reinforcing the image of the dangerous, drug-addicted homeless person far outweighs the good part imo.
Good I’m glad my sarcasm came through. When tech people and people in general talk about San Francisco’s homeless problem they don’t care about people who are temporary homeless. They are invisible and most get on their feet quickly packed away in some terrible share housing because of the areas poor zoning laws. Tech workers don’t care or think about these people even though that’s 95 percent of the homeless population. They are just another member of the invisible downwardly mobile trend.
What you hear people complain about is the long term homeless which by and large are drug addicts or have other problems. I’m not really going to be woke on homelessness, I know to many people and tried to get enough back on their feet. A lot of them have issues and living on the street doesn’t help them.
The thing is San Francisco is mostly unique in how it hates everyone. Unlike places which are a bit better people who would be on the edge end up on the street. by contrast if they lived in Maryland they would be in free housing where they don’t have to scrap by for every little thing and can enjoy some basic creature comforts which as you can imagine makes people a bit more tolerable to be around.If someone has to deal with drug or mental problems having a bed, roof and safety are pretty damn important to keep some scraps mental health. It’s not some inherent problem where it’s in their homeless genes. San Francisco just did some math and for a long time it was cheaper to send the cops on them rather than address any issues around zoning and mass building high quality public housing is outside of the American Overton window combined with the NIMBY team up of mostly rich Hispanic landlords and white landlords concerned about keeping their property values up and preserving the local character of their city while offering superficial support to rent control while failing to address the supply problem.
You can't post something demeaning to a large swath of people then say, "It was sarcasm, bro!" Differentiating between temporary homeless and long-term homeless makes sense on some level, but the way you're doing it just strikes me as sophistry. Like you're giving yourself an excuse to hate people because they don't want to get well hard enough.
I agree that the homeless should be given places to live. I don't understand your big run-on sentence about San Francisco American Overton Window NIMBY Hispanic landlords local character. When I tell you "you sound like a sociopath repeating a derogatory message about the homeless" and your response is "I'm not going to get woke on homelessness!" that really makes me question your empathy. You didn't even make a differentiation until I called you out on it.
Some people are going to be fucked up no matter what. And the way you fixate on making them 'tolerable to be around' makes me think you'll fall behind some weed and seed police program because you've already done the work of dehumanizing them in your heart.
No don’t hate anyone for not getting well fast enough that’s stupid. Their material conditions are not helping them. Regarding the tolerable to be around statement ya if someone is going to go and chase someone down the street because they are going through withdrawals I don’t want to be around them. I much preferred it when I could talk with people on their front deck about how they were behind on their fix instead. When you have to sleep in the elements it’s not good for you and turns you into an asshole. A lot of long term homeless people are assholes who I would not have a beer with in their current state.
Breaking down that big run on sentence for you since I’m already essay posting.
The San Francisco government is lobbied by a few groups with regards to housing. Out of the big ones there are mostly well meaning but wealthy Hispanic landlords who want to protect their fellow person and mostly are democrats. A huge portion of the southern half of the city is owned by them. They of course have their class interests aligning with the restrictions around new developments which fits in nicely with landlords out in the suburbs. This demographic also works closely with the extremely woke but idealist socialists who run a huge portion of local activism. This group has convinced me purges are the only way to deal with anarchists and made me swear off any sort of false cries for sympathy on housing rights from the left.
The other groups lobbying are the tech companies who try to get kickbacks for revitalization and stimulating the economy with their workers. Many of these same companies own the land around their companies either directly or as individuals and rent to the newer crop of tech workers late to the game. They support new luxury development and have no cause to help anyone so they will block spending on improving society by taking up space with revitalization. Tech worker renters don’t lobby often, they are too new to have roots so their influence is in driving the price up for everyone else.
No one in the US can argue for having rent control and building big style public housing for everyone and be taken seriously. Not something that’s just a scrap for poor people or rich people housing that has one unit for a underserved communities. Actual housing just because someone is human.
It sucks you had the experience of being chased down the street by someone on withdrawals. But to take that and generalize it against homeless people is stereotyping people. One who stereotypes the powerless is doing something hurtful, even if you dress it up as "I wouldn't have a beer with that guy!"
That's a highly-detailed description of some of the interlocking forces of oppression that work against the homeless. I could see why 'idealistic socialists' collaborating with landlords could cause you to lose faith in the movement. I would reply that I've seen tangible gains from anarchists stopping certain homeless sweeps, and I've also seen 'left' organizations collaborating with cops to clear the camps.
I am not making a false cry for sympathy on housing rights. I am telling you that you are peddling damaging stereotypes and even if you think you're justified in doing so because you're jaded or burnt out, it's still a negative thing to be doing.
This is some fucked up anti-homeless propaganda. You sound like one of those sociopaths on nextdoor, even if you end it with a call to action that would help them. The damage you do by reinforcing the image of the dangerous, drug-addicted homeless person far outweighs the good part imo.
Good I’m glad my sarcasm came through. When tech people and people in general talk about San Francisco’s homeless problem they don’t care about people who are temporary homeless. They are invisible and most get on their feet quickly packed away in some terrible share housing because of the areas poor zoning laws. Tech workers don’t care or think about these people even though that’s 95 percent of the homeless population. They are just another member of the invisible downwardly mobile trend. What you hear people complain about is the long term homeless which by and large are drug addicts or have other problems. I’m not really going to be woke on homelessness, I know to many people and tried to get enough back on their feet. A lot of them have issues and living on the street doesn’t help them.
The thing is San Francisco is mostly unique in how it hates everyone. Unlike places which are a bit better people who would be on the edge end up on the street. by contrast if they lived in Maryland they would be in free housing where they don’t have to scrap by for every little thing and can enjoy some basic creature comforts which as you can imagine makes people a bit more tolerable to be around.If someone has to deal with drug or mental problems having a bed, roof and safety are pretty damn important to keep some scraps mental health. It’s not some inherent problem where it’s in their homeless genes. San Francisco just did some math and for a long time it was cheaper to send the cops on them rather than address any issues around zoning and mass building high quality public housing is outside of the American Overton window combined with the NIMBY team up of mostly rich Hispanic landlords and white landlords concerned about keeping their property values up and preserving the local character of their city while offering superficial support to rent control while failing to address the supply problem.
You can't post something demeaning to a large swath of people then say, "It was sarcasm, bro!" Differentiating between temporary homeless and long-term homeless makes sense on some level, but the way you're doing it just strikes me as sophistry. Like you're giving yourself an excuse to hate people because they don't want to get well hard enough.
I agree that the homeless should be given places to live. I don't understand your big run-on sentence about San Francisco American Overton Window NIMBY Hispanic landlords local character. When I tell you "you sound like a sociopath repeating a derogatory message about the homeless" and your response is "I'm not going to get woke on homelessness!" that really makes me question your empathy. You didn't even make a differentiation until I called you out on it.
Some people are going to be fucked up no matter what. And the way you fixate on making them 'tolerable to be around' makes me think you'll fall behind some weed and seed police program because you've already done the work of dehumanizing them in your heart.
No don’t hate anyone for not getting well fast enough that’s stupid. Their material conditions are not helping them. Regarding the tolerable to be around statement ya if someone is going to go and chase someone down the street because they are going through withdrawals I don’t want to be around them. I much preferred it when I could talk with people on their front deck about how they were behind on their fix instead. When you have to sleep in the elements it’s not good for you and turns you into an asshole. A lot of long term homeless people are assholes who I would not have a beer with in their current state.
Breaking down that big run on sentence for you since I’m already essay posting. The San Francisco government is lobbied by a few groups with regards to housing. Out of the big ones there are mostly well meaning but wealthy Hispanic landlords who want to protect their fellow person and mostly are democrats. A huge portion of the southern half of the city is owned by them. They of course have their class interests aligning with the restrictions around new developments which fits in nicely with landlords out in the suburbs. This demographic also works closely with the extremely woke but idealist socialists who run a huge portion of local activism. This group has convinced me purges are the only way to deal with anarchists and made me swear off any sort of false cries for sympathy on housing rights from the left.
The other groups lobbying are the tech companies who try to get kickbacks for revitalization and stimulating the economy with their workers. Many of these same companies own the land around their companies either directly or as individuals and rent to the newer crop of tech workers late to the game. They support new luxury development and have no cause to help anyone so they will block spending on improving society by taking up space with revitalization. Tech worker renters don’t lobby often, they are too new to have roots so their influence is in driving the price up for everyone else.
No one in the US can argue for having rent control and building big style public housing for everyone and be taken seriously. Not something that’s just a scrap for poor people or rich people housing that has one unit for a underserved communities. Actual housing just because someone is human.
It sucks you had the experience of being chased down the street by someone on withdrawals. But to take that and generalize it against homeless people is stereotyping people. One who stereotypes the powerless is doing something hurtful, even if you dress it up as "I wouldn't have a beer with that guy!"
That's a highly-detailed description of some of the interlocking forces of oppression that work against the homeless. I could see why 'idealistic socialists' collaborating with landlords could cause you to lose faith in the movement. I would reply that I've seen tangible gains from anarchists stopping certain homeless sweeps, and I've also seen 'left' organizations collaborating with cops to clear the camps.
I am not making a false cry for sympathy on housing rights. I am telling you that you are peddling damaging stereotypes and even if you think you're justified in doing so because you're jaded or burnt out, it's still a negative thing to be doing.