California Doing California Things

[TSwizzle]

It's not dehumanizing. The point is that when red states have to deal with the entirety of their homeless population, they'll be more likely to take measures to fix it. If they don't, they'll suffer the same consequences that states like California do. It's also vile to diminish the problem by making it someone else's problem.

Reducing a human being's entire life to the "problem" it is causing for people who are offended by the sight of them is dehumanizing. There is no way to credibly call that empathy.

If someone accused you of "ruining their city" (your words) merely by existing, would you feel humanized by that exchange? Would you feel respected, having been described that way?

lol, it's not the sight of them that is offensive, silly goose. It's them taking a shit on your doorstep that is offensive.

You have no interest in helping these people. You, Bass and Newsom use them as a punishment for normal people.

You keep saying that, but the two institutions I work for are both an integral part of educating and housing homeless citizens before and after they become homeless. Whereas you do nothing, mock those who do do anything, and refuse to offer any sort of a clear plan of your own. You see why your baseless and inaccurate insults rather fail to land, from my perspective?

lol, you just claimed that people who point out the problems these “homeless” encampments cause are offended by the sight of them. A totally baseless claim and insult and you’re complaining?!!

lol. Such chutzpah.

 

[Politesse]

It's not dehumanizing. The point is that when red states have to deal with the entirety of their homeless population, they'll be more likely to take measures to fix it. If they don't, they'll suffer the same consequences that states like California do. It's also vile to diminish the problem by making it someone else's problem.

Reducing a human being's entire life to the "problem" it is causing for people who are offended by the sight of them is dehumanizing. There is no way to credibly call that empathy.

If someone accused you of "ruining their city" (your words) merely by existing, would you feel humanized by that exchange? Would you feel respected, having been described that way?

lol, it's not the sight of them that is offensive, silly goose. It's them taking a shit on your doorstep that is offensive.

You have no interest in helping these people. You, Bass and Newsom use them as a punishment for normal people.

You keep saying that, but the two institutions I work for are both an integral part of educating and housing homeless citizens before and after they become homeless. Whereas you do nothing, mock those who do do anything, and refuse to offer any sort of a clear plan of your own. You see why your baseless and inaccurate insults rather fail to land, from my perspective?

lol, you just claimed that people who point out the problems these “homeless” encampments cause are offended by the sight of them. A totally baseless claim and insult and you’re complaining?!!

lol. Such chutzpah.

And yet, you still refuse to tell us what you are personally doing to address homelessness, and what you think the state should do.

Trump is all hairpiece, no cattle.

 

[Elixir]

You know damn well what I'm talking about.

Actually no, I only have an idea of the result, not the process. I don’t think there is any uniformity or even coordination to it. I never met anyone on the streets when I lived in California, who claimed to have been shipped there. Which is weird; I met people who claimed to be royalty, people who were being followed by the CIA, people who said they were CIA, people who said they were born on other planets, some that knew how and when the world was going to end … I’d would have expected that the “I was shipped here by the Governor of Arkansas” story would have come up at least once or twice. But it has been a minute since I was spending a lot of time with homeless people in So Cal, and things have almost certainly changed out there.

And yet, you still refuse to tell us what you [Swiz] are personally doing to address homelessness, and what you think the state should do.

That’s cold. Swiz has been very upfront about what he thinks will improve the state of the State - elect a sufferable prick.
And you want to overlook the aid and comfort he provides to the throngs passed out drunk under his portico.

 

[Politesse]

It's not dehumanizing. The point is that when red states have to deal with the entirety of their homeless population, they'll be more likely to take measures to fix it. If they don't, they'll suffer the same consequences that states like California do. It's also vile to diminish the problem by making it someone else's problem.

Reducing a human being's entire life to the "problem" it is causing for people who are offended by the sight of them is dehumanizing. There is no way to credibly call that empathy.

If someone accused you of "ruining their city" (your words) merely by existing, would you feel humanized by that exchange? Would you feel respected, having been described that way?

lol, it's not the sight of them that is offensive, silly goose. It's them taking a shit on your doorstep that is offensive.

You have no interest in helping these people. You, Bass and Newsom use them as a punishment for normal people.

You keep saying that, but the two institutions I work for are both an integral part of educating and housing homeless citizens before and after they become homeless. Whereas you do nothing, mock those who do do anything, and refuse to offer any sort of a clear plan of your own. You see why your baseless and inaccurate insults rather fail to land, from my perspective?

lol, you just claimed that people who point out the problems these “homeless” encampments cause are offended by the sight of them. A totally baseless claim and insult and you’re complaining?!!

lol. Such chutzpah.

And yet, you still refuse to tell us what you are personally doing to address homelessness, and what you think the state should do.

Trump is all hairpiece, no cattle.

Is "roll eyes" an attempt at answering my question? You roll your eyes at them? You want Governor Newsom to roll his eyes?

I am not interested in emoticon interpretive dance. You moved to America, learn to write in English.

 

[Elixir]

If someone accused you of "ruining their city" (your words) merely by existing, would you feel humanized by that exchange? Would you feel respected, having been described that way?

Nobody has a right to expect others to make them feel humanized or respected.
You have the right to tell others “you are ruining my city” as long as you don’t make them feel bodily threatened.
At the end of the day, every citizen in the city has people who are ruining it for citizens like them. You’re probably ruining it for someone too, Poli (if you’re still in a city - I thought you went semi-rural or something).

 

[Politesse]

Nobody has a right to expect others to make them feel humanized or respected.

Okay, fine, so don't cry into your cheerios when someone observes that you dehumanize other people. Duh. Thick skin is an obvious requirement of your chosen life philosophy.

I will say that while no one cares what some rando retiree thinks about them, in a politician or other policy-maker, such a position is overtly dangerous, rather than just rude.

You’re probably ruining it for someone too, Poli (if you’re still in a city - I thought you went semi-rural or something).

I can see where you might have gotten that impression, but though I am a small town kid originally and recently moved away from the Bay, I currently live in a city of 220,000 people -- it's just surrounded by farms as opposed to other cities as previously. As for whether anyone feels I am ruining their life, my ratemyprofessor.com page is public information.

 

[Politesse]

A bunch of California Republicans are paying primo for gas this weekend because Governor Newsom shit-talked Chevron in a tweet and they are rushing to give the corporation $$$ just to prove him wrong.

Can't make this shit up!

 

[Colonel Sanders]

You know damn well what I'm talking about.

Actually no, I only have an idea of the result, not the process. I don’t think there is any uniformity or even coordination to it. I never met anyone on the streets when I lived in California, who claimed to have been shipped there. Which is weird; I met people who claimed to be royalty, people who were being followed by the CIA, people who said they were CIA, people who said they were born on other planets, some that knew how and when the world was going to end … I’d would have expected that the “I was shipped here by the Governor of Arkansas” story would have come up at least once or twice. But it has been a minute since I was spending a lot of time with homeless people in So Cal, and things have almost certainly changed out there.

This is the same bad faith nonsense that Trumpites routinely engage in. They pretend to not know what you're talking about when they damn well do. I refuse to believe you couldn't infer/figure out that I was referring to governmental apparatus's when I used the term "red states." To suggest that I was talking about private citizens is absurd.

Whatever the case, I've posted many times about possible solutions and the hurdles that would have to be overcome in implementing them.

Do you have an ideas that could solve the problem or is ridiculing the notion that something needs to be done enough for you?

 

[Elixir]

Thick skin is an obvious requirement of your chosen life philosophy.

I guess that makes fair game of your thin skin.

I currently live in a city of 220,000 people

… like I said …

 

[Elixir]

This is the same bad faith nonsense that Trumpites routinely engage in.

I assure you I offer my view in good faith that no trumpsucker can emulate, as very few of them have ever lived “on the street”.
The FACT of malevolent, systematic government operations is irrelevant, unless you want to point to specific pieces of that machinery as “the cause” or “the means” to effect the riddance of “unhomed” via their exile to California.
It is not “bad faith” to observe that your best suggestions are just that.
I could offer a litany of “suggestions” if there was any point in doing so.

 

[Elixir]

Thick skin is an obvious requirement of your chosen life philosophy.

Not to belabor the point, Poli, but you need to understand that thick skin is the result of its repeated abrasive contact with REALITY.

 

[Politesse]

Thick skin is an obvious requirement of your chosen life philosophy.

Not to belabor the point, Poli, but you need to understand that thick skin is the result of its repeated abrasive contact with REALITY.

If you think every prick with an uninformed opinion about you is a representation of REALITY, I can see why you have formed such a dim view of city life.

What do you consider to be the basis of reality, just out of curiosity?

 

[Elixir]

What do you consider to be the basis of reality, just out of curiosity?

I don’t consider things to be “the basis of reality”.
There does exist (for me) the persistent appearance of a reality consisting of me and everything external to me, all of which will behave in a manner consistent with it own constraints (aka laws of physics, nature, etc).
Whether it’s reality or just its appearance, is not of much interest to me, as it makes no difference as long as it remains sufficiently consistent. In any event, all that is available to me is what comes in through my senses, and the physiological processes* that interact with that input.

* incl mental & emotional processes

 

[Elixir]

If you think every prick with an uninformed opinion about you is a representation of REALITY

WTF?
Are we talking about insufferable pricks, or sufferable ones? Because that’s a vital distinction when I’m thinking about their opinions of me. Which is most of the time of course.

 

[Politesse]

If you think every prick with an uninformed opinion about you is a representation of REALITY

WTF?
Are we talking about insufferable pricks, or sufferable ones? Because that’s a vital distinction when I’m thinking about their opinions of me. Which is most of the time of course.

If they were sufferable pricks, why would you need a thick skin to deal with them?

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/24/...e_code=1.k1A.LAAb.Ka53vSq_gCez&smid=url-share

Oh no! Californians have to look at those ugly R.V.s. Poor babies. In my small city there are some run down trailer homes that are eye sores but to my knowledge, nobody's complaining, at least not in public. I just feel bad for the people living in them, but at least they have somewhat of a roof over their heads. But, I don't live in Cal. thankfully. Why can't wealthy states like California buy some land for the homeless and let them set up encampments, allowing tents, or RVs in areas that are at least walkable to grocery stores etc. Or, considering the wealth in Cal, why not build tiny homes for those in need of a home, and give proper treatment to those who suffer from severe mental illnesses. That might help. Why can't the filthy rich do more to help these people? Many of them have jobs, are older adults, mentally ill or disabled. The waiting list for subsidized housing, afaik, in just about every state is so long that some places have stopped taking names to put on the list.

In Homeless Crisis, California ‘Is Waging a War on R.V.s’​

The R.V.s are seen as an eyesore — the most visible sign of the state’s homelessness crisis. Neighbors and politicians want them gone. The people who call them home feel under siege.


Listen · 9:12 min

• On any given night in California, estimates suggest, roughly 34,000 homeless people will take shelter in their vehicles. Tori Larett, a homeless rights lawyer in Sacramento, thinks the real number is double that. For half of them, their home is a recreational vehicle, converted bus or travel trailer parked on the street.
  
  In January, a new California law went into effect in Los Angeles and Alameda Counties, allowing the authorities to quickly demolish oversize vehicles worth up to $4,000, up from $500, if the owner cannot move the vehicle without help from a tow truck.
  
  “The whole state is waging a war on R.V.s right now,” said Ms. Larett, who is also the research director at the National Vehicle Residency Coalition.
  
  For three cloudless days in March, Sam Lutzker and I crisscrossed Los Angeles hearing stories about life in R.V.s. Mr. Lutzker, 33, has weeks left before three years of field research for a Ph.D. in sociology at U.C.L.A. gives way to writing his thesis. “I care about these individuals deeply,” he said.
  
  

 

[Politesse]

Rich people ain't like that. The investment class is all Trump all the time now.

 

[TV and credit cards]

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/24/...e_code=1.k1A.LAAb.Ka53vSq_gCez&smid=url-share

Oh no! Californians have to look at those ugly R.V.s. Poor babies. In my small city there are some run down trailer homes that are eye sores but to my knowledge, nobody's complaining, at least not in public. I just feel bad for the people living in them, but at least they have somewhat of a roof over their heads. But, I don't live in Cal. thankfully. Why can't wealthy states like California buy some land for the homeless and let them set up encampments, allowing tents, or RVs in areas that are at least walkable to grocery stores etc. Or, considering the wealth in Cal, why not build tiny homes for those in need of a home, and give proper treatment to those who suffer from severe mental illnesses. That might help. Why can't the filthy rich do more to help these people? Many of them have jobs, are older adults, mentally ill or disabled. The waiting list for subsidized housing, afaik, in just about every state is so long that some places have stopped taking names to put on the list.

In Homeless Crisis, California ‘Is Waging a War on R.V.s’​

The R.V.s are seen as an eyesore — the most visible sign of the state’s homelessness crisis. Neighbors and politicians want them gone. The people who call them home feel under siege.


Listen · 9:12 min

• On any given night in California, estimates suggest, roughly 34,000 homeless people will take shelter in their vehicles. Tori Larett, a homeless rights lawyer in Sacramento, thinks the real number is double that. For half of them, their home is a recreational vehicle, converted bus or travel trailer parked on the street.
  
  In January, a new California law went into effect in Los Angeles and Alameda Counties, allowing the authorities to quickly demolish oversize vehicles worth up to $4,000, up from $500, if the owner cannot move the vehicle without help from a tow truck.
  
  “The whole state is waging a war on R.V.s right now,” said Ms. Larett, who is also the research director at the National Vehicle Residency Coalition.
  
  For three cloudless days in March, Sam Lutzker and I crisscrossed Los Angeles hearing stories about life in R.V.s. Mr. Lutzker, 33, has weeks left before three years of field research for a Ph.D. in sociology at U.C.L.A. gives way to writing his thesis. “I care about these individuals deeply,” he said.
  

California government provides housing. The wealthy in California provides housing through nonprofits. But this is all at the whim of what government and the wealthy decide to do in any given year. It all needs to be mandatory. Until then it's all just bandaids on a sucking chest wound. Capitalism and democracy have run amok in the United States. The concentration of wealth needs to be redistributed. No Mark Zuckerberg should ever be allowed again. Mandatory social services need be in place so people with piss-poor ideas like considering the profit margin of a mobile salon in a costly vehicle with no place to park when your competition is an Amazon warehouse are not followed through on.

 

[thebeave]

These whiny librarians need to just suck it up.

 

[Politesse]

These whiny librarians need to just suck it up.

Is that supposed to be sarcasm?