Breakdown In Civil Order

[Emily Lake]

LA draws a lot of homeless because of the weather--the gear to be safe in a northern city in winter is not cheap!

Totally explains why there's a higher per-capita number of homeless people in DC, NY, and VT, and a much lower in FL... wait...

I don't think weather is the reason. And I think that should be pretty obvious given that there's nothing remotely like the same concentration of homeless in the southeast, despite the weather being tolerable, water being abundant, and there being a significant amount of edible wild food and easily accessible fish and sea-based foods. It should also be obvious that the weather isn't the draw, given that NY has a much higher concentration of homeless people, but does NOT seem to have anything like the same issues that are seen along the west coast.

It's as if there's something else that is at the root of the problem... maybe something like policies? Hmm... perhaps it's worth thinking about...

 

[Politesse]

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?

So you are proposing that there are two kinds of citizens: the homeless, and "all other citizens", and "all other citizens" want a life "free of drug needles and trash"? Is that correct?

You're offended that I mischaracterized you as talking about fellow human beings as though they were trash, but to refute my point, you quoted yourself literally comparing inherently "clean" homed citizens to inherently "dirty" unhomed citizens that need to be "cleaned" off the street by force to save the rights of the homed. This is why I cannot take you seriously. You can't just talk about people that way and then demand that everyone else see you as this nice person who only wants the best for everyone.

 

[ZiprHead]

I know this has been asked numerous times of the righties and all we've gotten is vague platitudes but I'll try again. Where do you want the homeless to go? And how much are you willing to spend to get them there?

 

[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?

So you are proposing that there are two kinds of citizens: the homeless, and "all other citizens", and "all other citizens" want a life "free of drug needles and trash"? Is that correct?

You're offended that I mischaracterized you as talking about fellow human beings as though they were trash, but to refute my point, you quoted yourself literally comparing inherently "clean" homed citizens to inherently "dirty" unhomed citizens that need to be "cleaned" off the street by force to save the rights of the homed. This is why I cannot take you seriously. You can't just talk about people that way and then demand that everyone else see you as this nice person who only wants the best for everyone.

Oh good fucking lord. I don't know if you are actually incapable of understanding what I write, or if you're just highly invested in intentionally mischaracterizing it and somehow think that you're crafty about it.

 

[Politesse]

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?

So you are proposing that there are two kinds of citizens: the homeless, and "all other citizens", and "all other citizens" want a life "free of drug needles and trash"? Is that correct?

You're offended that I mischaracterized you as talking about fellow human beings as though they were trash, but to refute my point, you quoted yourself literally comparing inherently "clean" homed citizens to inherently "dirty" unhomed citizens that need to be "cleaned" off the street by force to save the rights of the homed. This is why I cannot take you seriously. You can't just talk about people that way and then demand that everyone else see you as this nice person who only wants the best for everyone.

Oh good fucking lord. I don't know if you are actually incapable of understanding what I write, or if you're just highly invested in intentionally mischaracterizing it and somehow think that you're crafty about it.

It's not that I don't understand how you want to come across. You want to seem like a nice person, an honest American who harbors no ill intent whatsoever toward homeless people, immigrants, trans folks, etc, but is merely concerned for the rights and safety of everyone. Right?

 

[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?

So you are proposing that there are two kinds of citizens: the homeless, and "all other citizens", and "all other citizens" want a life "free of drug needles and trash"? Is that correct?

You're offended that I mischaracterized you as talking about fellow human beings as though they were trash, but to refute my point, you quoted yourself literally comparing inherently "clean" homed citizens to inherently "dirty" unhomed citizens that need to be "cleaned" off the street by force to save the rights of the homed. This is why I cannot take you seriously. You can't just talk about people that way and then demand that everyone else see you as this nice person who only wants the best for everyone.

Oh good fucking lord. I don't know if you are actually incapable of understanding what I write, or if you're just highly invested in intentionally mischaracterizing it and somehow think that you're crafty about it.

It's not that I don't understand how you want to come across. You want to seem like a nice person, an honest American who harbors no ill intent whatsoever toward homeless people, immigrants, trans folks, etc, but is merely concerned for the rights and safety of everyone. Right?

And somehow you think you have magical insight to my mind, so that you can tell what I really secretly think?

 

[Politesse]

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?

So you are proposing that there are two kinds of citizens: the homeless, and "all other citizens", and "all other citizens" want a life "free of drug needles and trash"? Is that correct?

You're offended that I mischaracterized you as talking about fellow human beings as though they were trash, but to refute my point, you quoted yourself literally comparing inherently "clean" homed citizens to inherently "dirty" unhomed citizens that need to be "cleaned" off the street by force to save the rights of the homed. This is why I cannot take you seriously. You can't just talk about people that way and then demand that everyone else see you as this nice person who only wants the best for everyone.

Oh good fucking lord. I don't know if you are actually incapable of understanding what I write, or if you're just highly invested in intentionally mischaracterizing it and somehow think that you're crafty about it.

It's not that I don't understand how you want to come across. You want to seem like a nice person, an honest American who harbors no ill intent whatsoever toward homeless people, immigrants, trans folks, etc, but is merely concerned for the rights and safety of everyone. Right?

And somehow you think you have magical insight to my mind, so that you can tell what I really secretly think?

How is that a "secret"? It's just what you write.

I'd rather not "interpret" you at all, but whining about how you've been "misintrepreted" is what you've chosen to do instead of addressing more substantive arguments, so what else do we have to talk about?

If you don't think the homeless are a problem that needs to be cleaned from the streets, just say so. I'd respect that a lot more than this mock personal offense bullshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

The problem is we don't have any way to do better. You're basically saying that because we can't be perfect we must not do anything to protect ourselves.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Exactly. You get to use public spaces, you don't get to hog public spaces.

Same as I'm opposed to sidewalk vendors.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know this has been asked numerous times of the righties and all we've gotten is vague platitudes but I'll try again. Where do you want the homeless to go? And how much are you willing to spend to get them there?

Observation: I'm pretty sure homeless people are sleeping behind some of the electrical transformers around here. They do not block anything (the transformers in question are on major streets, they have a gap and then somebody's back fence), they don't disturb people, they don't leave mess other than the wind throwing their stuff about sometimes. Zero problems and I haven't heard of anyone griping about them.

People gripe when the action rises to the level of causing problems for others.

 

[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?

The problem is we don't have any way to do better.

Yes, you fucking well do.

You're basically saying that because we can't be perfect we must not do anything to protect ourselves.

No, I am absolutely NOT.

I am basically saying that if you target a group for collective punishment, despite some members being innocent of the offence for which you are punishing them, then you are immoral and unethical to a degree exemplified by the worst societies in human history.

Deliberately punishing people for things they haven't done, because they share some traits in common with people who have done those things, is despicable.

You are basically saying that bigotry is perfectly fine with you, because you are comfortable that you yourself won't become a target.

I am absolutely happy with society protecting itself against people who are breaking the rules. I am absolutely NOT happy with doing so in a way that pre-empts wrongdoing, or that assumes wrongdoing via an irrelevant proxy.

Being homeless doesn't identify you a criminal, or a drug addict, or a litterbug, any more than being black, or Jewish, or Italian does.

If President for life Donald Trump decided to stamp out loan-sharking as part of his 2032 platform, and his plan to do so is to round up all the Jews, would you agree that he is right to do so on the grounds that opposing his plan would be "saying that because we can't be perfect we must not do anything to protect ourselves"?

How would the morality of that differ from a plan to round up all the Homeless?

Hint: It wouldn't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

The problem is we don't have any way to do better.

Yes, you fucking well do.

You're basically saying that because we can't be perfect we must not do anything to protect ourselves.

No, I am absolutely NOT.

I am basically saying that if you target a group for collective punishment, despite some members being innocent of the offence for which you are punishing them, then you are immoral and unethical to a degree exemplified by the worst societies in human history.

Deliberately punishing people for things they haven't done, because they share some traits in common with people who have done those things, is despicable.

You are basically saying that bigotry is perfectly fine with you, because you are comfortable that you yourself won't become a target.

I am absolutely happy with society protecting itself against people who are breaking the rules. I am absolutely NOT happy with doing so in a way that pre-empts wrongdoing, or that assumes wrongdoing via an irrelevant proxy.

Being homeless doesn't identify you a criminal, or a drug addict, or a litterbug, any more than being black, or Jewish, or Italian does.

If President for life Donald Trump decided to stamp out loan-sharking as part of his 2032 platform, and his plan to do so is to round up all the Jews, would you agree that he is right to do so on the grounds that opposing his plan would be "saying that because we can't be perfect we must not do anything to protect ourselves"?

How would the morality of that differ from a plan to round up all the Homeless?

Hint: It wouldn't.

Being homeless does not.

But the reality is that homeless encampments are a problem for the community they are in. People respond by trying to drive away the threat. Punishing the wrongful acts is basically a complete failure--the lower level stuff that wouldn't get jail time amounts to a nothing and even when they do end up in jail that does nothing about mental illness and when their sentence is up they'll be right back out there a danger to the community.

You have no proposals that will do anything to remove the danger but you feel society can't take action because they can't be perfectly selective in doing so. Do something about the dangerous ones and society would be a lot more tolerant of the rest.

 

[bilby]

Do something about the dangerous ones

... and leave everyone else the FUCK alone.

the reality is that homeless encampments are a problem for the community they are in

Yes. They are. That problem is not one that can morally or ethically be resolved by vilifying or abusing people merely for being there; Despite the fact that villification and abuse are much cheaper than actually helping people.

the lower level stuff that wouldn't get jail time amounts to a nothing

Indeed. So any action, particularly draconian action, is unwarranted.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am basically saying that if you target a group for collective punishment, despite some members being innocent of the offence for which you are punishing them, then you are immoral and unethical to a degree exemplified by the worst societies in human history.

This approach bothers me. You frame the expectation of safe and clean communal use of communal property as being a punishment to those who do not maintain that cleanliness, and who increase risk to the public by the way in which they abuse those communal properties.

 

[bilby]

I am basically saying that if you target a group for collective punishment, despite some members being innocent of the offence for which you are punishing them, then you are immoral and unethical to a degree exemplified by the worst societies in human history.

This approach bothers me. You frame the expectation of safe and clean communal use of communal property as being a punishment to those who do not maintain that cleanliness, and who increase risk to the public by the way in which they abuse those communal properties.

You frame the desire to collectively punish a group of people, based on an identity that is neither unlawful nor immoral, as "the expectation of safe and clean communal use of communal property", so frankly I suggest that if "framing" is problematic for you, you might attend to your beam, rather than my mote.

Hassling innocent people, purely because they are members of a villified minority, is utterly despicable.

Excusing that harrasment, by claiming a desire for cleanliness, is straight out of the ethnic cleansing playbook.

Obvious vile bigotry is obvious.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am basically saying that if you target a group for collective punishment, despite some members being innocent of the offence for which you are punishing them, then you are immoral and unethical to a degree exemplified by the worst societies in human history.

This approach bothers me. You frame the expectation of safe and clean communal use of communal property as being a punishment to those who do not maintain that cleanliness, and who increase risk to the public by the way in which they abuse those communal properties.

You frame the desire to collectively punish a group of people, based on an identity that is neither unlawful nor immoral, as "the expectation of safe and clean communal use of communal property", so frankly I suggest that if "framing" is problematic for you, you might attend to your beam, rather than my mote.

Hassling innocent people, purely because they are members of a villified minority, is utterly despicable.

Excusing that harrasment, by claiming a desire for cleanliness, is straight out of the ethnic cleansing playbook.

Obvious vile bigotry is obvious.

I don't think it's punishment in the first place, nor do I seek any sort of incarceration of fining for homeless people being homeless. I don't vilify homeless people, so you despising me for that is misplaced. I'm not advocating harassment, nor would I support it in any way.

Honestly, do you even read your own posts? I want public spaces to be clean and safe for the public to use. I want treatment - even if it might be involuntary in some cases - for drug addiction and mental illnesses that are present in higher prevalences in homeless populations. I want reasonable laws regarding drug use in public.

It seems that you do not want these things. You seem to favor allowing addicts to do drugs in public openly, with no consideration for the impact such behavior has on everyone else. But that's not enough - you go further than that. You somehow feel that you are justified in flinging poo at anyone who doesn't hold your view, by insinuating that I want to punish innocent people, harrass them. You call me despicable, and you intimate that my desire for the commons to be communally accessible to be tantamount to ethnic cleansing. Then you just straight up call me a bigot.

 

[bilby]

You seem to favor allowing addicts to do drugs in public openly, with no consideration for the impact such behavior has on everyone else.

Not at all.

I just see you when you make the unwarranted, unreasonable, and downright bigoted conflation of "drug addict" with "homeless person".

If you don't like being thought a bigot, stop doing that.

Drug addiction and homelessness are not the same problem, nor even closely related problems, from a solutions perspective (there is a causal link in both directions, but it's not large enough for the two problems to share any common solutions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am basically saying that if you target a group for collective punishment, despite some members being innocent of the offence for which you are punishing them, then you are immoral and unethical to a degree exemplified by the worst societies in human history.

This approach bothers me. You frame the expectation of safe and clean communal use of communal property as being a punishment to those who do not maintain that cleanliness, and who increase risk to the public by the way in which they abuse those communal properties.

You frame the desire to collectively punish a group of people, based on an identity that is neither unlawful nor immoral, as "the expectation of safe and clean communal use of communal property", so frankly I suggest that if "framing" is problematic for you, you might attend to your beam, rather than my mote.

Hassling innocent people, purely because they are members of a villified minority, is utterly despicable.

Excusing that harrasment, by claiming a desire for cleanliness, is straight out of the ethnic cleansing playbook.

Obvious vile bigotry is obvious.

You continue to object but do not propose any other option to make people safe.

Even if it were just a matter of cleanliness it would be legitimate--littering is illegal.

However, it's a matter of safety. People do not feel safe around homeless encampments.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think it's punishment in the first place, nor do I seek any sort of incarceration of fining for homeless people being homeless. I don't vilify homeless people, so you despising me for that is misplaced. I'm not advocating harassment, nor would I support it in any way.

Exactly. It's an actual problem for the areas they congregate.

Honestly, do you even read your own posts? I want public spaces to be clean and safe for the public to use. I want treatment - even if it might be involuntary in some cases - for drug addiction and mental illnesses that are present in higher prevalences in homeless populations. I want reasonable laws regarding drug use in public.

Involuntary treatment for drug addiction is worthless. And involuntary treatment for mental illness is typically worthless.

I believe the situation would improve if the drugs were legal. But I would like to see jail time for drug-induced disorderly behavior. And I include alcohol in that. And if mental illness caused you to harm someone you should be confined (although I don't really think jail is the right approach) until there is reason to believe you won't do it again.

 

[bilby]

People do not feel safe around homeless encampments.

People don't have the right to abuse other people because of the way those other people make them feel.