Breakdown In Civil Order

[robnisch]

MSN

This guy has a solution to the homeless problem.
shit, we may have to build those camps after all.
with razor wire.

 

[Jarhyn]

Rather, we should be aiming to prevent anyone from losing too badly.

This comes down to a failure (by me) to communicate a particular fact in light of the conversation: you rely on a false dichotomy between winning/losing.

To me there is "losing" and "winning" and also "playing the game while doing neither of those things".

Losing means ceasing to play the game (or moving towards that end) with less than you started with. Winning means some fraction of your novel DNA gets another go with at least as much resources as you had. But as often you can just keep playing the game.

I would like to minimize loss, while helping everyone "win" as much as they may, and barring that, making it easy to at least "play the game".

Camping by the homeless has the same issue.

People need spaces to live, and we should be employing urban design to actually support the homeless population. It would be better for every city if every city was able to accommodate their own homeless population instead of shunting them all to LA or Minneapolis or New York.

If we make places which by design act as... Well, to put it frankly, a "drain trap", we will see less people camping on the streets.

All too often the homeless are disruptive. Nobody should be blocking a pathway

Which is exactly why we need to employ urban design that creates more or less "natural" spaces for such camps, instead of having them camp in bus shelters and sidewalks near city centers.

I'm thinking places designed like parking garages but specifically intended to be used by homeless people, places within reach of urban areas, away from built up roads. Maybe open lots without actual car access as sites. Alcoves marked and intended for rough sleepers built under bridges, and the like, with places where they will throw their garbage that are convenient for people to clear out. We should build our whole infrastructure with places for homeless folks to live.

The issue here is that nobody seems to be willing to build a dream structure for homeless people to live because as you note, the conservative folks just want the problem to disappear up a smokestack.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Residents of an apartment building in Santa Monica say they have been terrorized by a man who walks around completely nude at all hours of the day and night and worry someone could get hurt if the behavior escalates. People living at an apartment complex on 20thStreet near Pico Boulevard say it’s bad enough that the male resident walks around naked at all hours of the day, but what’s worse is the harassment and racism they face in addition to his screaming obscenities and continually trashing his apartment. Another female resident, who did not want to be identified, said the man often screams racial slurs at her and has walked into her apartment. “He’s called me slave, B-word, N-word,” she told KTLA’s Mary Beth McDade. “He told me he’s going to kill me.”

News

We really are living in an open air psychiatric ward.

Note: "male resident". Therefore not homeless. The problem is psychiatric, not homeless.

And note "could get hurt if the behavior escalates"--in other words, the current situation is just an annoyance.

And note that KTLA appears to be a Faux relation--honest reporting is not to be expected.

In the past we used to lock up a lot of people for psychiatric conditions. It was recognized that in most cases this was excessive and the people could function in assisted living type situations. Raygun seized upon the court decision that locking them up was wrong but didn't replace the insane asylums with anything.

We have gone too far in the other direction, if mental illness causes crime then they should be required to stay on treatment or be locked up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

a bit more than you're concerned about the right of all other citizens to have access to clean and safe public spaces free of drug needles and trash.

If your problem is with drug addicts discarding needles, then crack down on drug addicts discarding needles. If your problem is with littering, then crack down on littering.

Collective punishment is abhorrent and immoral. You should not be evicted because your neighbour is delinquent on his rent; Why should a homeless person be moved on because his neighbour is littering, or discarding dirty sharps in unsafe ways?

The problem is attempting to crack down on the undesired behavior is never successful. There's also the problem that deterrence from criminal acts doesn't work very well on those whose focus is on their next fix.

Yes, that is a problem. But it's a problem of drug addicts, not a problem of homeless people.

You can reduce the needle problem by providing injection sites, but in doing so you create a focal point of people desperate for their next fix and thus a place most people want to remain well away from.

Again, a problem; And again not a problem caused by homeless people, but by drug addicts.

By homeless drug addicts. Addicts with a place to live will probably shoot up at home and not leave needles about.

I do not have good answers but your answer is simplistic and won't work in the real world.

My answer is to target the people who are causing the problem, rather than targeting a different group of people.

The problem is that your focused solution does not work.

I do not like it but the reality is the only way you can be confident that the area is free from contaminated sharps is to not have homeless encampments about. I'm pretty sure there are homeless living behind various electrical transformers around here. They're dispersed, out of the way (the transformers always have a clear zone around them so someone behind one isn't in the way) and don't leave appreciable trash. By staying under the radar they aren't a problem.

Same as we lost the popular local hot spring (the spring itself is still there, the pools are not) because too many morons were crapping in the area. Fecal coliform counts kept being high and they ended up ending their policy of turning a blind eye to the existence of the pools. (Legally, you're not allowed to build things on public lands without official permission. In practice if your actions are generally useful and don't cause problems they're left alone.)

That's not "simplistic"; I expect it to be difficult and only partly effective. But it is an absolute certainty that targeting people because they are homeless, without giving a moment's consideration to whether or not they are also drug addicts, will both be less effective in reducing the scale of the problem, AND will create an additional, unnecessary, easily avoidable and inhumane problem - the punishment of people who are in no way associated with the original problem.

If you want to find a simplistic approach here, it is to be seen in the demands of people who treat homelessness as synonymous with drug addiction, littering, and mental illness, because it's easier to identify and harrass homeless people than it is to identify, discourage, or assist people in one or more of the latter three groups.

You're being simplistic in thinking a targeted approach will work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rather, we should be aiming to prevent anyone from losing too badly.

This comes down to a failure (by me) to communicate a particular fact in light of the conversation: you rely on a false dichotomy between winning/losing.

To me there is "losing" and "winning" and also "playing the game while doing neither of those things".

Losing means ceasing to play the game (or moving towards that end) with less than you started with. Winning means some fraction of your novel DNA gets another go with at least as much resources as you had. But as often you can just keep playing the game.

I would like to minimize loss, while helping everyone "win" as much as they may, and barring that, making it easy to at least "play the game".

You described it very wrong, now you're getting it right. Reality is win/play/lose, not win/lose. We should be trying to help move lose to play, not trying to help move it to win.

Camping by the homeless has the same issue.

People need spaces to live, and we should be employing urban design to actually support the homeless population. It would be better for every city if every city was able to accommodate their own homeless population instead of shunting them all to LA or Minneapolis or New York.

If we make places which by design act as... Well, to put it frankly, a "drain trap", we will see less people camping on the streets.

LA draws a lot of homeless because of the weather--the gear to be safe in a northern city in winter is not cheap! (And the price tag goes up considerably if you want it small and light enough to throw in a backpack.) And it's a dispersed city meaning there is more area for them to find places.

A drain trap would become an area nobody else would go, nor would you even want it nearby.

I'm thinking places designed like parking garages but specifically intended to be used by homeless people, places within reach of urban areas, away from built up roads. Maybe open lots without actual car access as sites. Alcoves marked and intended for rough sleepers built under bridges, and the like, with places where they will throw their garbage that are convenient for people to clear out. We should build our whole infrastructure with places for homeless folks to live.

I definitely like the alcove idea. But nothing that concentrates them.

The issue here is that nobody seems to be willing to build a dream structure for homeless people to live because as you note, the conservative folks just want the problem to disappear up a smokestack.

It also costs money. Besides, harm reduction approaches are basically conceding that the problem can't be solved. And what politician wants to admit they can't solve a problem??

I'm definitely on the side of harm reduction, but I realize how hard that is for a politician.

 

[Politesse]

MSN

This guy has a solution to the homeless problem.
shit, we may have to build those camps after all.
with razor wire.

So, wait... he confessed to distributing counterfeit currency and conspiracy? On his own Tiktok? What a moron. Of course, if they try to arrest him he'll just claim it was a joke and he never actually did that. Of course.

 

[Jarhyn]

weather

Well, that greatly increases the ability to of LA to absorb homeless people but my point is that they shouldn't need to! Minneapolis has a sizable homeless population as well as a few "tent city" areas, and there are some places where I know homeless people tend to accrete here.

The problem with this is that the locations are bad both for them and the city, and there aren't any more convenient places for them to gather and live.

You can't prevent the need, and you can't prevent the activity, all you can do is make it as unobtrusive as possible either way, and provide whatever services and alternatives to people who can be diverted in the first place.

If every city accepted whatever small fraction of humanity they could, no one city would be overwhelmed the way some people seem to think places like LA are, as well.

It really comes down to everyone doing their part and not "moving them along" until they end up in unmanageable numbers at a single "social organ" that can't handle the load.

People become homeless at a rate defined by the opportunities that exist in it, true, but also at a fixed rate related to the percentage of humans who are simply not stable as members of society. We cannot really reduce it below that level, so we need to have enough land set aside for absorbing them as we may.

Some we will be able to rehabilitate, some we will have to put in jail, but some will just be homeless, and the only way to minimize the problems any of us have with that is to spread the burden as thin as we can manage, and to have places where they can exist without being moved in. We can't afford to let Nimbys have a say. It MUST be in my back yard, and everyone else's, too.

 

[bilby]

Addicts with a place to live will probably shoot up at home and not leave needles about.

[citation needed]

This has not been the case in my experience. Addicts with a place to live still go to public places to shoot up.

 

[bilby]

The problem is that your focused solution does not work.

The problem is that your unfocussed solution not only does not work, but also punishes innocent people, which is about as evil an act by a government as it is possible to imagine.

I would rather have a solution that doesn't work very well than a Final Solution (that also wouldn't work very well).

 

[bilby]

I do not like it but the reality is the only way you can be confident that the area is free from contaminated sharps is to not have homeless encampments drug addicts about.

FTFY.

I am struggling to understand why you cannot grasp this vital point: Homelessness is NOT drug addiction.

Collective punishment is evil.

Even if all criminals were black (which of course, they are not), it would be abhorrent to attempt to address crime by locking up all the black people (or driving them all out of town).

Even if all terrorists were muslims (which of course, they are not), it would be abhorrent to attempt to address terrorism by locking up all the muslims (or driving them all out of town).

Even if all drug addicts who discard needles in public places were homeless (which of course they are not), it would be abhorrent to attempt to address the problem of discarded needles by locking up all the homeless people (or driving them all out of town).

Your way of thinking here is deeply cruel, and your excuse that it is necessary to harm the innocent, in order to eliminate the problem, would be vile, even if it were not obviously based on the false premise that eliminating an entire outgroup (innocent and guilty alike) would eliminate all of those who are guilty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not like it but the reality is the only way you can be confident that the area is free from contaminated sharps is to not have homeless encampments drug addicts about.

FTFY.

I am struggling to understand why you cannot grasp this vital point: Homelessness is NOT drug addiction.

Of course it's not. The problem is that to make the environment safer you have to target the group you can see: homeless, rather than the subgroup that's the actual issue: homeless addicts leaving needles about, and aggressive mentally ill people.

Your way of thinking here is deeply cruel, and your excuse that it is necessary to harm the innocent, in order to eliminate the problem, would be vile, even if it were not obviously based on the false premise that eliminating an entire outgroup (innocent and guilty alike) would eliminate all of those who are guilty.

What you fail to understand is that people want to be safe. People legitimately are afraid to be around homeless encampments. Yes, it's subgroups within them that are the actual issue, but people have no way to identify them until there's a problem. Thus the fear is directed at the characteristic that can be identified.

It's not like Muslims/terrorists--terrorists are such a small portion that it's not a useful identifier.

Walk past a mosque? No problem. Walk past a homeless encampment? Worrisome.

 

[bilby]

The problem is that to make the environment safer you have to target the group you can see: homeless, rather than the subgroup that's the actual issue

Have you no grasp of just how evil that is?

Would it be OK to target black people rather than car theives?

Would it be OK to target Jews rather than loan sharks?

Italians rather than mobsters?

 

[bilby]

What you fail to understand is that people want to be safe. People legitimately are afraid to be around homeless encampments.

What you fail to understand is that people don't have the right to abuse the innocent in the name of safety.

People legitimately are afraid of blacks, Jews, and Italians, too. It's called "bigotry".

 

[Shadowy Man]

The problem is that to make the environment safer you have to target the group you can see: homeless, rather than the subgroup that's the actual issue

Have you no grasp of just how evil that is?

Would it be OK to target black people rather than car theives?

Would it be OK to target Jews rather than loan sharks?

Italians rather than mobsters?

Note that Loren does not have this attitude when it comes to the police.

 

[bilby]

The problem is that to make the environment safer you have to target the group you can see: homeless, rather than the subgroup that's the actual issue

Have you no grasp of just how evil that is?

Would it be OK to target black people rather than car theives?

Would it be OK to target Jews rather than loan sharks?

Italians rather than mobsters?

Note that Loren does not have this attitude when it comes to the police.

The problem is that to make the environment safer you have to target the group you can see: police, rather than the subgroup that's the actual issue, bad apples.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The problem is that to make the environment safer you have to target the group you can see: homeless, rather than the subgroup that's the actual issue

Have you no grasp of just how evil that is?

Would it be OK to target black people rather than car theives?

Would it be OK to target Jews rather than loan sharks?

Italians rather than mobsters?

Note that Loren does not have this attitude when it comes to the police.

The problem is that to make the environment safer you have to target the group you can see: police, rather than the subgroup that's the actual issue, bad apples.

People forget the full quote: one bad apple spoils the bunch. .

 

[Jarhyn]

I do not like it but the reality is the only way you can be confident that the area is free from contaminated sharps is to not have homeless encampments drug addicts about.

FTFY.

I am struggling to understand why you cannot grasp this vital point: Homelessness is NOT drug addiction.

Of course it's not. The problem is that to make the environment safer you have to target the group you can see: homeless, rather than the subgroup that's the actual issue: homeless addicts leaving needles about, and aggressive mentally ill people.

Your way of thinking here is deeply cruel, and your excuse that it is necessary to harm the innocent, in order to eliminate the problem, would be vile, even if it were not obviously based on the false premise that eliminating an entire outgroup (innocent and guilty alike) would eliminate all of those who are guilty.

What you fail to understand is that people want to be safe. People legitimately are afraid to be around homeless encampments. Yes, it's subgroups within them that are the actual issue, but people have no way to identify them until there's a problem. Thus the fear is directed at the characteristic that can be identified.

It's not like Muslims/terrorists--terrorists are such a small portion that it's not a useful identifier.

Walk past a mosque? No problem. Walk past a homeless encampment? Worrisome.

At no point in time does the percent of bads justify going after the not-bads, except when the "not-bads" run interference and cover for the "bads" (such as cops).

It also doesn't decrease the need to accept some worrisomeness everywhere to decrease the worrisomeness in any one place in particular.

We don't get to live our lives absolutely free of worry, either, especially when a large portion of this problem is generated by things that give people no choice but to be homeless (not the least of which including foreclosures, predatory lending issues, and inescapable debt).

 

[Emily Lake]

Which citizen's rights are you worried about?

All citizens rights matter, and we will stand and fall together on the strength of our willingness to defend the rights of all of our neighbors. Those you consider neighbors, and also those you talk about as though they were just so much human trash. Believe me, if the shoe were on the other foot, you would suddenly find that you were not in fact willing to surrender your life and property without a fight, just ensure the emotional comfort of the homed population. But it would be too late for you, then. No one listens to the homeless, especially not homeless women, nor considers them to have any right to define their own rights or fate. Soon you would find yourself dependent on the goodwill of people who are... just like you used to be.

It's not just a thought experiment, I talked to plenty of homeless folks who were in that exact position, suddenly on the other side of a fence they didn't even think it was possible to cross. It can happen fast. Very fast.

Wow. At no point have I talked about the homeless population as if they're human trash, and your mischaracterization is a transparent appeal to emotion based on a strawman.

But hey, can we at least acknowledge the bits that you oh-so-cleverly trimmed out as if they weren't there? Do you feel that perhaps your entire spiel here might be weakened if you acknowledged the remainder of my post?

You frame it as "the emotional comfort of the homed population" when what I actually said was "right of all other citizens to have access to clean and safe public spaces free of drug needles and trash". Would you care to comment on the way that you have so blatantly attempted to misrepresent my view?

 

[Emily Lake]

I wonder at those who fail to care about everyone's rights, all at the same time.

Oh sweetie, you fail to care about other people's rights on a pretty regular basis.

 

[Emily Lake]

Public places are public.

You are essentially saying that you (and, you rather insultingly presume, we) feel more entitlement to those spaces than anyone who has nowhere else to go; You feel that as it is reasonable not to want homeless people in your private space, it is therefore also reasonable not to want them in your public spaces, either.

The problem being that these are not your spaces to begin with, and your opinion about who else should be allowed there is consequently entirely a you problem. You are being greedy and entitled, by wanting public spaces to be reserved exclusively for you, and for people you approve of.

Well, tough shit - homeless people are members of the public too, and can occupy public spaces if they wish - and they will; Particularly if they have no other options.

Tragedy of the commons.

If homeless people occupy public spaces, they are depriving all other citizens of the use of those public spaces. You seem to think I view them as my public spaces; I don't. I view them as our public spaces - spaces that all of us should be able to safely access for their intended purpose.