|
HashtagGirlboss posted:Honestly there are situations where your best option is to ignore it. Somebody in crisis standing in traffic or screaming at the sky or the like. Had a guy show me his junk a couple months ago. He just said “excuse me” and when I turned to acknowledge him he pulled down his shorts and cupped his balls and smiled.” Nothing to do but move on in those situations i was talking about at a policy level. yeah if someone is dangerous or having a crisis you, an untrained person, should probably just get away. but i hear peopel talking about the homeless like it isn't a problem that they exist, that there isn't anything to do about it. very much a "don't like it? don't live here!" attitude which i do not think is helpful or good. we should be doing something about it! like, housing them.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
lobster shirt posted:i was talking about at a policy level. yeah if someone is dangerous or having a crisis you, an untrained person, should probably just get away. but i hear peopel talking about the homeless like it isn't a problem that they exist, that there isn't anything to do about it. very much a "don't like it? don't live here!" attitude which i do not think is helpful or good. we should be doing something about it! like, housing them. Ah. Gotcha! I honestly don’t hear that one. Public opinion and even amongst people I know tends to split neatly between “harsh crackdown” and “they are members of the community” and I don’t see anyone pretending the problem doesn’t exist. Mostly the “move to the suburbs” stuff is either a threat from the crackdown types “fix this or I’m moving” or it’s actual suburbanites being shitheads “move to the suburbs where this doesn’t happen” Which actually yeah to your point suburbanites like to pretend these problems are outside of them and they don’t have to acknowledge that they’re as much a part of the problem and solution as anyone else. So after typing all that up I guess I’m agreeing with you
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:Just read up on it and my first question—the ten blocks from existing shelters thing seems pointless and just a way to gently caress with people. Does it make exceptions for whether or not the shelters are full or whether they would even take that particular homeless person (for example, a guy near a women’s shelter, or somebody with a dog)? The meat seems to be the 200 ft from waterways because that tends to be the green spaces where it’s easiest to camp out of sight Afaik these sort of bans are basically a sop to the neighborhood around the shelter- okay were putting some of those evil homeless people there but at least we're making sure they're not on the street near you. When I did some volunteer work at a shelter we'd have to patrol around a few times a night to make sure no one was sleeping nearby
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
IDK if it's been mentioned but on the positive side panhandling is being established as expression of free speech in various recent court cases throughout the country, so one less thing they can get hassled for 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
Love Rat posted:Republican-dominated states like to pretend there's some lockstep leftwing thing happening in places like Seattle, but rich people and people with means run these cities just like anywhere else, even if they talk big game about LGBTQ and minority rights, about inclusivity, etc. These are just platitudes. If you want to see hate in Seattle bring up any left-wing politician or activist or even pragmatic solution at North Seattle neighborhood meetings lol. The Sawant stuff is so funny. She is 1 councilwoman and constantly gets outvoted by nearly everyone on the council. A few years ago one of my coworkers was complaining that she was trying to pass a law that would keep landlords from evicting drug dealers. I looked it up and what she was trying to get passed was a bill that would make it much harder for landlords to evict people in the winters. Blue states have their culture wars, usually the target of their ire is poor people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
bedpan posted:I should clarify that by street executions, I mean a formal program to literally massacre the homeless versus the current strategy of maneuvering the homeless into a position where they are more likely to have encounters with the police and thus, be more likely to be extrajudicially executed. that one YouTuber who ran for governor in California in the recall election had a "final solution" plan for the homeless I thought it sounded very ominous
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:Just read up on it and my first question—the ten blocks from existing shelters thing seems pointless and just a way to gently caress with people. Does it make exceptions for whether or not the shelters are full or whether they would even take that particular homeless person (for example, a guy near a women’s shelter, or somebody with a dog)? The meat seems to be the 200 ft from waterways because that tends to be the green spaces where it’s easiest to camp out of sight From what I know there are some bigger camps near the shelters. They are trying to move them "diplomatically". One was cleared earlier this year but people just moved back because there are services near it. I've just been here for a year though and things have just gotten worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 07:19
|
|
|
err posted:the liberal response to homelessness and empire collapse is to punish anyone & everyone. not even an attempt to reorient society at all and adapt to changing situations Tennesse passed a homeless ban that would make it illegal to be homeless a few months ago. see, liberals don't actually want to hurt them, but why do they have to be OUR problem? they can go to nyc or sf instead, they shouldnt be ruining beautiful downtown portland/seattle/nashville/whatever. point is to make it someone elses problem. america is very good and cool
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 08:48
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:IDK if it's been mentioned but on the positive side panhandling is being established as expression of free speech in various recent court cases throughout the country, so one less thing they can get hassled for Panhandling loving sucks, and should be rendered illegal concurrently with the establishment of UBI
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 09:08
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Tennesse passed a homeless ban that would make it illegal to be homeless a few months ago. see, liberals don't actually want to hurt them, but why do they have to be OUR problem? they can go to nyc or sf instead, they shouldnt be ruining beautiful downtown portland/seattle/nashville/whatever. Yeah I always forget liberals don't care enough either way. As long as they can't see them out their WFH window.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 09:56
|
|
|
BrotherJayne posted:Panhandling loving sucks, and should be rendered illegal concurrently with the establishment of UBI wtf sure lets just give the cops more reason to brutalize the homeless
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 12:08
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:wtf idk you should probably reread that post
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 12:10
|
|
|
A Bakers Cousin posted:idk you should probably reread that post If UBI was a thing and somebody still wants to panhandle what's the big deal nobody should need to panhandle but nobody should get arrested for it either, good lord
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 12:12
|
|
|
idk maybe panhandling doesnt need to be defended but go on
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 12:19
|
|
|
A Bakers Cousin posted:idk maybe panhandling doesnt need to be defended but go on you wouldn't think so but here we are: BrotherJayne posted:Panhandling loving sucks, and should be rendered illegal
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 12:30
|
|
|
Meanwhile, these are the types of freaks who want to render it illegal: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/01/04/stop-panhandling-in-dallas-sorry-but-that-s-illegal/ quote:But the council's never stopped trying, insisting cops get tougher on beggars. They demand no-solicitation signs be planted in and around downtown. They say things like "Break their backs, break their spirit — that's the only way we're going to win this battle," to quote Pleasant Grove's Rickey Callahan. They insist most panhandlers are pros, not homeless, which the ACLU vehemently disputes. I loathe these people and I hope they suffer chronic bedbug infestations for the rest of their miserable lives
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 12:33
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:i was talking about at a policy level. yeah if someone is dangerous or having a crisis you, an untrained person, should probably just get away. but i hear peopel talking about the homeless like it isn't a problem that they exist, that there isn't anything to do about it. very much a "don't like it? don't live here!" attitude which i do not think is helpful or good. we should be doing something about it! like, housing them. I feel like that's two problems that share a cast of characters. We should be fixing our society, AND the people that think we do that by rounding up the poor and putting them in camps should get the gently caress out, for their sake and everyone else's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 12:35
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:Meanwhile, these are the types of freaks who want to render it illegal: yeah good point, im not remembering where the push is coming from
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 12:41
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:Meanwhile, these are the types of freaks who want to render it illegal: That's one of my least favorite American fictions, the "poor people are secretly richer than I am" thing. People say that homeless people begging in the street are living better than working people are, making a thousand bucks a day just sitting there, and you know they don't believe it because it is impossible to believe that. If you actually thought you could drastically improve your life by telling your boss to go gently caress himself and finding some cardboard, you'd try to do it, and you'd learn firsthand that it doesn't work that way. It's just this lovely sneering little fake idea that makes people feel better, but they demand you take it seriously because you can't prove they don't believe it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 13:08
|
|
|
Yeah, the Wheeler plan is only going to allow 500 people into 3 “sanctioned camping sites” which is only a fraction of the total amount of people on the streets in Portland. Another thing is that the number of villages with prefab units has also been dropping (for various reasons) and the people that had been living at the site in old town and in the east industrial district have been both pushed out. Basically, they making being homeless illegal without essentially anywhere to go for most people. I assume the goal is to chase them out of town. Even Astoria has been seeing rising homelessness in the past year as well. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 14:18 on Oct 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 13:15
|
|
|
not sure why the actions of the tennessee state government are being ascribed to the libs. destruction of the homeless is a bipartisan project and the more overtly exterminationist stuff is definitely more common on the republican side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 14:11
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:not sure why the actions of the tennessee state government are being ascribed to the libs. destruction of the homeless is a bipartisan project and the more overtly exterminationist stuff is definitely more common on the republican side. I mean Portland is suppose to be a “liberal city” and look where it is at. I think the difference is messaging.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I mean Portland is suppose to be a “liberal city” and look where it is at. I think the difference is messaging. There’s some amount of messaging. Go read how Rene Gonzales talks about homelessness to Portland liberals and it’s full of slimy platitudes and faux compassion that then hints at the extreme solutions. People are pretty good at picking up on subtext for all the ways they pretend to be dense as rocks when called out on the implications of what they’re demanding. I doubt it was much on anyones mind during drafting but the Tennessee law has the potential to create a circuit split between the ninth and the sixth. Currently, the ninth has Martin v Boise which says you can’t criminalize camping unless there are shelter beds available. While I think cities are trying to push this in hopes that the ninth will back down or reverse, it’s out there looming over local policy decisions and gumming up the works when it comes to the most extreme solutions. The USSC has so far declined to wade into the mess, idk why but probably because it’s seen as a local issue that the court doesn’t really need to get involved in, and why do they care, they’re all plenty insulated from this stuff But if the Tennessee law were to be challenged and sanctioned by the sixth you have a split in the federal circuits. At that point, it becomes much more likely that USSC picks up a case to sort it out. I doubt the outcome is good if that happens As for Astoria, I was just reading about them actually sanctioning outdoor camping. I’m not surprised homelessness has made its way out there. It’s a charming little town and we’ll situated to have an affordability crisis in the wfh era
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
So the dems are gonna blame the homeless when they lose the midterms right
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
the walmart/mcdonalds parking lot in town put these up impressive density of liberal thought poison on a single piece of powdercoated steel
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 01:23
|
|
|
Real Mean Queen posted:they demand you take it seriously because you can't prove they don't believe it. This describes the vast majority of beliefs americans hold
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 02:54
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:Meanwhile, these are the types of freaks who want to render it illegal: The white flight microcities around dallas and houston are the throbbing, rancid heart of american fascism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 03:03
|
|
|
BrotherJayne posted:Panhandling loving sucks, and should be rendered illegal concurrently with the establishment of UBI What is your objection to panhandling?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 09:56
|
|
|
their own feelings of guilt and shame
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 11:46
|
|
|
The people here probably know this already but I'd like to remind everybody itt that the cruelty is the point. If you were a perfectly rational technocrat who looked around the world at the various proposed solutions to homelessness and did the neoliberal cost-benefit analyses on all of them to find the cheapest (and therefore most efficient) policy response, you would find that the cheapest and most effective way to eliminate homelessness is to give people homes. Wikipedia shockingly has a very good summary of how one of the reddest states in the United States managed this:quote:Homelessness and panhandling in Utah was a major issue in 2005, and the city implemented a 10-year plan hoping to eradicate homelessness by 2015.[237] Though they have not completely stopped homelessness, the state has been extremely successful at reducing homelessness by 91%.[238] In 2005 there were over 1,932 chronically homeless persons in Utah and in 2015 this figure has dropped to a staggering 178 people.[238] However, unlike many other states across the U.S., the state government did not implement hardline laws to breakdown its homelessness problem through fining, prosecuting or 'moving on'; but implemented a simple solution to the complex problem which was the 'housing first' program.[239] The primary focus was to put homeless people into housing first, and then help them deal with the underlying issues that made them became homeless from addictions, mental health and health care.[240] The last step is then to help them find employment. Studies have shown investing in homes for the homeless actually saves money in the long run.[240] It cost approximately $19,208 a year for the state to take care of its homeless people. This is through hospital visits, time in custody, shelter time and ambulance callouts.[241] In comparison, it only cost approximately $7,800 a year for the state to provide a house and holistic case management.[241] Critics say this solution may intensify laziness, however residents need to pay rent which is 30% of their income or $50 a month, whatever amount is greater.[240] The problem with this actual solution is that the individualistic response to programs like this is to kneejerk react against people being "given something for free". You'll even hear people say things like "oh if you implement a program like that then people will just become homeless to get a free apartment", because the assumption is that poor people are scammers rather than people genuinely in need of a helping hand. That assumption leads directly to support for cruelty as policy, because the assumption that poverty is a choice leads to the belief that homeless and poor people could choose to pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they tried hard enough, and so the solution is not to help them but to criminalize poverty to incentivize poor people to try harder. It's sickening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
To solve homelessness you have to solve poverty which is impossible, except in china due to different racial traits or authoritarianism or whatever
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The people here probably know this already but I'd like to remind everybody itt that the cruelty is the point. If you were a perfectly rational technocrat who looked around the world at the various proposed solutions to homelessness and did the neoliberal cost-benefit analyses on all of them to find the cheapest (and therefore most efficient) policy response, you would find that the cheapest and most effective way to eliminate homelessness is to give people homes. Wikipedia shockingly has a very good summary of how one of the reddest states in the United States managed this: Try bringing this up to west coast libs and they’ll generally deflect it by going “oh that’s because they’re all Mormons and they have a cultural homogeneity that means they can do this but it won’t work in our delightfully more diverse city…” It’s a really weird flex to be completely honest, with a lot of unchecked assumptions and weird cultural baggage
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
They actually don't believe bootstraps are real, they want an underclass of the completely terrorized, without rights or a domicile the old carlin line about the function of poor people seems to about cover it
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 17:17
|
|
|
the white hand posted:their own feelings of guilt and shame about 60% this if I'm going to be honest. But additionally it should not be acceptable to get in random peoples' faces unwanted. Door to door sales and those weird religio door knockers should be illegal too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
BrotherJayne posted:about 60% this if I'm going to be honest. Aggressive pan handlers suck but also it’s entirely possible to push past and not acknowledge them Lots of things suck like Tesla drivers holding up two blocks of traffic trying to parallel park or dog poop on the path in the park or the lady grinding three bags of coffee blocking the aisle in the grocery store or any of a million little annoyances that come with urban living Aggressive pan handlers don’t really suck more than any of the other poo poo you put up with day to day
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:Aggressive pan handlers suck but also it’s entirely possible to push past and not acknowledge them Naw, I generally sympathize with them, making the interactions suckier
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
BrotherJayne posted:about 60% this if I'm going to be honest. counterpoint: door to door jobs are really fun if you like annoying NIMBYs
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
canvassing was a fun job. you really get good at reading peopleBrotherJayne posted:Naw, I generally sympathize with them, making the interactions suckier give them some money then. or have confidence in your station above them and shoulder check them if they get in your way. appreciate that there's only one unperson in the interaction and it's not you, so there's no reason to be intimidated
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 01:21
|
|
|
the white hand posted:canvassing was a fun job. you really get good at reading people Yeah this. Honestly most panhandlers I encounter are pretty chill but the super aggressive ones are a solved problem. Either give them money or don’t. Criminalizing it is just loving lib poo poo where they want to pretend they have empathy and also don’t want to feel bad for not having change or not wanting to give away their change Actually had a pretty fun interaction last night. Walking in my neighborhood and a homeless woman waves at me and so I figure she’s going to ask me for change or a cigarette or whatever. She asked me if I could drive her to Redding (probably a 6/7 hour drive). I told her “sorry left my car at home” and she just smiled and we parted ways
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
vyelkin posted:The people here probably know this already but I'd like to remind everybody itt that the cruelty is the point. If you were a perfectly rational technocrat who looked around the world at the various proposed solutions to homelessness and did the neoliberal cost-benefit analyses on all of them to find the cheapest (and therefore most efficient) policy response, you would find that the cheapest and most effective way to eliminate homelessness is to give people homes. Wikipedia shockingly has a very good summary of how one of the reddest states in the United States managed this: THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2022 03:57
|
|
