6 ms·

You seem like a pleasant person. Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think I will be returning anytime soon. You guys have a level of problems I want to

You seem like a pleasant person. Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think I will be returning anytime soon. You guys have a level of problems I want to stay far away from. Sometimes to be humane, you have to be inhumane. You guys do have some great restaurants. I hope you're able to keep them. Best of luck.

simoncion 3y ago
> Sometimes to be humane, you have to be inhumane. And what -exactly- do you mean by that? Please do be specific.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Not OP, but if someone is on the street openly using drugs and defecating on the sidewalk, those are crimes. They can be addressed through therapy or community support or jail. But they need to be addressed, even if the person in question would prefer they not be.
- deviantbit 3y ago
  I was trying to be nice. Let me put it in terms that Gene Roddenberry would have explained. He emphasized it in his work. You might have heard about it. Star Trek. "The needs of the many, out way the needs of a few, or the one." When you're more interested in the humanity, and dignity of those afflicted (the few) than those not afflicted (the many) then you're going to continue to generate more afflicted. You have to stop the problem at the source. That means: Cutting off the drug supply. Enforcing laws. Everything you most likely despise. You only care about those that are on those streets. You have to make it harder to become homeless, than it is to be a successful functioning member of society. Jobs are not the problem. There are jobs everywhere. In one of my businesses, I needed truck drivers. I can't find them because hardly anyone can pass a drug test. I will pay for them to get their CDL, if they're drug free. It's not happening. I sponsored 3 people from India to drive trucks for me. They work 6 hour days, make $35 an hour, with route bonuses, and benefits. I have a software company (or had), where we did DoD projects. It is next to impossible to find anyone that can pass a background check for a security clearance with the FBI. Why? Drugs. I had another software company that was in the Casino Gaming space. It was difficult to get people licensed. Why? Drugs. There is opportunity for everyone, bad decisions put you in the street. Then people like you and I have coddled these people, and give them enough to get by, so they don't want to return to being a functioning members of society. Anything else, they steal or commit another crime to get more drugs. I have spoken to many of these people. Your presumption shows your character. I have donated more money to this problem than you will make in your life. Money is not fixing the issue. I have stopped supporting many alcoves. We keep creating more, and more that end up needing help. The majority of the problem revolves around drugs. Drugs cause mental issues. This is a fact. People don't want to work. They want drugs. So, I will not be returning to SF. I will not fund the business I was there to invest in. Keep going with your idealism. The universes own laws will eventually catch up with you, as history shows us every time.
  - anotherhue 3y ago
    For the life of me I cannot understand why we tolerate antisocial behaviour in our public spaces. The difference in experience between Market Street and most streets in Berlin or Kyoto is astounding. Forced relocation to care communities (which would need to be built) is the only move I see. Food, Shelter, Waste disposal, etc. The idea of a group of homeless people being able to set up a camp wherever they want, when everything else in society needs to go through planning permission is insane.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bbor 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - RobertRies 3y ago
      "You honestly, really think all those people just sat down one day and decided to be homesless Because they’d be coddled?!" Strictly speaking this is simply a straw man via oversimplification (as is nearly the entirety of this post and the others I've seen from bbor in this thread)... But I've seen this _variety_ of straw man so often that I want to break it out into a specific fallacy on its own. Not sure what to call it but the "Oh, so you think X decided one day just Y?" "Oh so you think Elizabeth Holmes just sat down one day and decided _I'm going to scam billions out of investors and risk lives and pretend I made a blood testing machine_"? "Who sees this advertisement for Tide and just decides _I'm going to buy Tide because I saw this advertisement?" "Oh so you think I listen to Andrew Tate one day and now suddenly I'm abusing women?" "Oh, so you think I'm going to do heroin one time and suddenly I'm going to be homeless and addicted?" No. We're the culmination of dozens, hundreds, thousands of behaviors (with genetic and environmental influences) that create a trend. So, err, I'll entertain your bad-faith rhetorical question and answer: no, nobody thinks anyone "sat down one day and decided to be homesless [sic] because they'd be coddled." San Francisco (on behalf of the voters, you and I) have created thousands of tiny incentive structures that maximizes the pain people experiencing homelessness, drug addiction, and mental illness, while simultaneously maximizing the negative impact to the housed, because you believe everyone who is housed deserves to be the victim of assaults, burglaries and all the other fun because they aren't supporting your policies. Let me guess: housing-first? Certainly their drug addictions and mental illnesses will instantly vanish with a free house in the most expensive real-estate in the country? Anything short of this, well, they can stay on the street and find comfort in stealing things to fund their heroin/fentanyl self-medication.

simoncion 3y ago

> Sometimes to be humane, you have to be inhumane. And what -exactly- do you mean by that? Please do be specific.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Not OP, but if someone is on the street openly using drugs and defecating on the sidewalk, those are crimes. They can be addressed through therapy or community support or jail. But they need to be addressed, even if the person in question would prefer they not be.
deviantbit 3y ago
I was trying to be nice. Let me put it in terms that Gene Roddenberry would have explained. He emphasized it in his work. You might have heard about it. Star Trek. "The needs of the many, out way the needs of a few, or the one." When you're more interested in the humanity, and dignity of those afflicted (the few) than those not afflicted (the many) then you're going to continue to generate more afflicted. You have to stop the problem at the source. That means: Cutting off the drug supply. Enforcing laws. Everything you most likely despise. You only care about those that are on those streets. You have to make it harder to become homeless, than it is to be a successful functioning member of society. Jobs are not the problem. There are jobs everywhere. In one of my businesses, I needed truck drivers. I can't find them because hardly anyone can pass a drug test. I will pay for them to get their CDL, if they're drug free. It's not happening. I sponsored 3 people from India to drive trucks for me. They work 6 hour days, make $35 an hour, with route bonuses, and benefits. I have a software company (or had), where we did DoD projects. It is next to impossible to find anyone that can pass a background check for a security clearance with the FBI. Why? Drugs. I had another software company that was in the Casino Gaming space. It was difficult to get people licensed. Why? Drugs. There is opportunity for everyone, bad decisions put you in the street. Then people like you and I have coddled these people, and give them enough to get by, so they don't want to return to being a functioning members of society. Anything else, they steal or commit another crime to get more drugs. I have spoken to many of these people. Your presumption shows your character. I have donated more money to this problem than you will make in your life. Money is not fixing the issue. I have stopped supporting many alcoves. We keep creating more, and more that end up needing help. The majority of the problem revolves around drugs. Drugs cause mental issues. This is a fact. People don't want to work. They want drugs. So, I will not be returning to SF. I will not fund the business I was there to invest in. Keep going with your idealism. The universes own laws will eventually catch up with you, as history shows us every time.
- anotherhue 3y ago
  For the life of me I cannot understand why we tolerate antisocial behaviour in our public spaces. The difference in experience between Market Street and most streets in Berlin or Kyoto is astounding. Forced relocation to care communities (which would need to be built) is the only move I see. Food, Shelter, Waste disposal, etc. The idea of a group of homeless people being able to set up a camp wherever they want, when everything else in society needs to go through planning permission is insane.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bbor 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - RobertRies 3y ago
    "You honestly, really think all those people just sat down one day and decided to be homesless Because they’d be coddled?!" Strictly speaking this is simply a straw man via oversimplification (as is nearly the entirety of this post and the others I've seen from bbor in this thread)... But I've seen this _variety_ of straw man so often that I want to break it out into a specific fallacy on its own. Not sure what to call it but the "Oh, so you think X decided one day just Y?" "Oh so you think Elizabeth Holmes just sat down one day and decided _I'm going to scam billions out of investors and risk lives and pretend I made a blood testing machine_"? "Who sees this advertisement for Tide and just decides _I'm going to buy Tide because I saw this advertisement?" "Oh so you think I listen to Andrew Tate one day and now suddenly I'm abusing women?" "Oh, so you think I'm going to do heroin one time and suddenly I'm going to be homeless and addicted?" No. We're the culmination of dozens, hundreds, thousands of behaviors (with genetic and environmental influences) that create a trend. So, err, I'll entertain your bad-faith rhetorical question and answer: no, nobody thinks anyone "sat down one day and decided to be homesless [sic] because they'd be coddled." San Francisco (on behalf of the voters, you and I) have created thousands of tiny incentive structures that maximizes the pain people experiencing homelessness, drug addiction, and mental illness, while simultaneously maximizing the negative impact to the housed, because you believe everyone who is housed deserves to be the victim of assaults, burglaries and all the other fun because they aren't supporting your policies. Let me guess: housing-first? Certainly their drug addictions and mental illnesses will instantly vanish with a free house in the most expensive real-estate in the country? Anything short of this, well, they can stay on the street and find comfort in stealing things to fund their heroin/fentanyl self-medication.