San Francisco residents cover sidewalks in rocks to keep away homeless - Well if the city won't help...

queue-anon

kiwifarms.net
You can't interrogate or think critically about them because to do so is to silence the "lived truth" of the storyteller. Thus, in order to be a good activist, you must affirm the experiences, stories, life choices, etc. of the marginalized without comment or judgment; to do otherwise is to further their oppression.
Meanwhile, junkies and many of the worst mentally ill can't be trusted. Every junkie will give you a sob story about why their lives turned to shit; about how they totally would get clean if <something, something>; and how they're great people who will cause no harm to nobody. And the "lived experience" bullshit means that liberals can't challenge these obvious lies.

As an example, I get very suspicious when I hear about a medical professional who's homeless. With how in demand they are, there's no way they wound up there because the rent's too high. And given what happens when junkies wind up in a position of authority in a medical setting, they're almost definitely homeless because they're addicts *and* they stole drugs, sometimes from their own patients. Their "lived experience" means you have to take their word for it that they didn't do nuffin'.

Where does she work? Amazon. They want to save the world from hearing mean words on the internet but I guess it's bad PR to be seen taking too many steps to protect their own employees' physical safety.
It's definitely bad PR. Bezos doesn't care about anybody, so I'm sure he'd be happy to sweep the vagrants trespassing on Amazon property into Elliott Bay, but the political situation in Seattle means Amazon needs to tread carefully. Just about every liberal here blames Amazon for all the city's problems, and the city council is extremely eager to tax the shit out of Amazon.

Basically the same reason they won't try any method of curbing homelessness if Giuliani tried it in NYC first. Never mind that his methods actually worked, he's a Republican, and if a Republican says don't put your hand on the stove then by god you better burn your hand to a cinder or else you're not pure enough for the inquisitors.
San Francisco had really bad homeless encampments from the '60s to the '90s, but they were cleared out in the mid-'90s by a shitlord mayor who, although being a Democrat, had a lot in common with Giuliani. I'm just old enough to remember the ree-ing by the homeless and their advocates during that period. It wasn't even that they were being forced out of town. There was shelter space available; they just didn't want to use it. Jordan pushed his plan through anyway, and, in the aftermath, violent crime against the homeless plummeted.

Enoch Powell started this stupid trend in Britain on the grounds that it would somehow be more 'free' for the deranged to be wandering around in the 'community' shitting and pissing on themselves (and cheaper (yeah, mainly cheaper)).
It's not really cheaper though.

I mean, it would be if society would just leave these people to die in a ditch, but we're generous enough not to let them die but not to force them to get treatment. In my area, the worst chronic homeless people (who are crazy or addicted to drugs or both) cost the government $100k-200k per year. There's been a debate even among residents who are fed up with this bullshit whether it makes sense to throw vagrant criminals in jail, because a jail stay costs $60k per year, but that's a hell of a lot cheaper than leaving them on the street. And that's not even getting into the costs to businesses and regular people by letting vagrants steal and assault their way through the city.
 

Kiwi Lime Pie

So tasteful it's scary. 🥝🥧🐈
kiwifarms.net
This is one of those situations that stems from frustration. In a city and a state where policies and practice encourage the homeless to settle and do almost anything they want without any consequences, it was inevitable that we'd see citizens start to rebel and find some sort of way to fight back within the convoluted framework of laws that makes 'Frisco so homeless friendly.

You can't blame the residents for using rocks, annoying music, or other stuff to make their neighborhoods seem as unappealing as possible for homeless to squat in and cause trouble. I'd like to believe these people have empathy for the minority of homeless that are homeless simply through no fault of their own. However, those who have no desire to be anything but homeless and bring crime and other illegal activities to wherever they squat are rightfully unwanted. Sadly, the so-called homeless activists don't have any practical solutions and instead actively work to remove or undo what the residents have done to discourage the homeless from settling while branding the locals as insensitive to the plight of homeless people.

It was also rich to see the homeless person grumble that the property owners wouldn't engage with them before working to make their neighborhood uninivting with the boulders. Does he really want us to believe that if the residents politely said, "You're not welcome on our property, please leave now," He would do so no questions asked? :story:

"They grilled them How Dare You! How could you do this to these people! How dare you violate their rights!"
There's irony in that activists argued that institutions were undesirable because they violated the patients' human rights only to see these patients out on the streets because there was no place else for them to go. Granted, many institutions were so awful and inhumane that they needed to be closed, but the deinstitutionalization of so many people at once resulted in most of them suddenly becoming homeless and unable to function in the outside world -- often times committing crimes or otherwise being a nuisance. How was that any sort of improvement of their rights?

They don't give a shit about anything but getting drunk/high/fucked up. The ones wanting help have already found it.
And there are some that are temporarily down on their luck that want help and cant get it because those that are drunk, high, and messed up cause so many problems that the people extending them help say, "Screw it, this isn't worth it," and they stop providing their assistance which makes it difficult for the next homeless person needing help and wanting to use said help as intended to get back on his or her feet as quickly as possible.
 

littlearmalite

Neck yourself, faggot.
kiwifarms.net
This is one of those situations that stems from frustration. In a city and a state where policies and practice encourage the homeless to settle and do almost anything they want without any consequences, it was inevitable that we'd see citizens start to rebel and find some sort of way to fight back within the convoluted framework of laws that makes 'Frisco so homeless friendly.

You can't blame the residents for using rocks, annoying music, or other stuff to make their neighborhoods seem as unappealing as possible for homeless to squat in and cause trouble. I'd like to believe these people have empathy for the minority of homeless that are homeless simply through no fault of their own. However, those who have no desire to be anything but homeless and bring crime and other illegal activities to wherever they squat are rightfully unwanted. Sadly, the so-called homeless activists don't have any practical solutions and instead actively work to remove or undo what the residents have done to discourage the homeless from settling while branding the locals as insensitive to the plight of homeless people.

It was also rich to see the homeless person grumble that the property owners wouldn't engage with them before working to make their neighborhood uninivting with the boulders. Does he really want us to believe that if the residents politely said, "You're not welcome on our property, please leave now," He would do so no questions asked? :story:


There's irony in that activists argued that institutions were undesirable because they violated the patients' human rights only to see these patients out on the streets because there was no place else for them to go. Granted, many institutions were so awful and inhumane that they needed to be closed, but the deinstitutionalization of so many people at once resulted in most of them suddenly becoming homeless and unable to function in the outside world -- often times committing crimes or otherwise being a nuisance. How was that any sort of improvement of their rights?


And there are some that are temporarily down on their luck that want help and cant get it because those that are drunk, high, and messed up cause so many problems that the people extending them help say, "Screw it, this isn't worth it," and they stop providing their assistance which makes it difficult for the next homeless person needing help and wanting to use said help as intended to get back on his or her feet as quickly as possible.
Be ye warned, there be personal experience in this here post.

Minute powerlevel here. Formerly homeless on the West Coast. That last point is entirely true. The shelters I stayed at made token, if any efforts to actually help the homeless improve their situation. They gave you a bed and a hot meal, and in some of the places' cases, three hot meals a day, but no bed. The entire day save for mealtimes and night, you were out on the street, and there was no effort to get you off of it. Your needs were met, so why worry about 'making things better'? You're probably on drugs or a criminal anyway, after all. I got lucky, had a bit of money squirreled away and a way to get it, though it took time. Most homeless people don't get that, and are like the folks I bummed with- stuck on the street with little in the way of motivation to change their life, and those that do lack the means to change it when they do have the motivation.
 

stuffandthings

kiwifarms.net
How does this affect the homeless? Well, in a few ways. One, you can't talk about the impact of mental health or drug addiction because those are stigmatized and thus carry the whiff of judgment with them. Two, allowing the homeless to continue with the status quo is to affirm their choices and their experiences, which is the correct thing to do as an ally of the homeless because you are not inserting yourself or silencing them.
This is why so many 'activists' resist the idea of rounding up the homeless, forcing inpatient mental health or drug programs, or even making some kind of bar to receive homeless services. It takes away the precious precious agency of the homeless person. It infantilizes them and treats them as lesser. As if their circumstances don't do that in more tragic and physical ways. They treat self-determination as an inalienable human right even as they try to claim the homeless people cannot control their addictions. They want drug-addled, mentally ill people to 'self-determinate' how they will use other peoples' land and spend other peoples' money, rather than 'paternalistically' dictating it.

There's an interesting parallel between homeless activists and those right-wing free-earthers that squat on government land. They both REEEEE about their right to access areas and spaces they don't own or pay for.
 

littlearmalite

Neck yourself, faggot.
kiwifarms.net
This is why so many 'activists' resist the idea of rounding up the homeless, forcing inpatient mental health or drug programs, or even making some kind of bar to receive homeless services. It takes away the precious precious agency of the homeless person. It infantilizes them and treats them as lesser. As if their circumstances don't do that in more tragic and physical ways. They treat self-determination as an inalienable human right even as they try to claim the homeless people cannot control their addictions. They want drug-addled, mentally ill people to 'self-determinate' how they will use other peoples' land and spend other peoples' money, rather than 'paternalistically' dictating it.

There's an interesting parallel between homeless activists and those right-wing free-earthers that squat on government land. They both REEEEE about their right to access areas and spaces they don't own or pay for.
Not to mention that quite a few of these 'activists' are actually shills for the shelters and service agencies- by removing their clientele, they are made obsolete and stop receiving funding. Kinda like... private prisons.
 

3119967d0c

رنج آمریکایی ها
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Be ye warned, there be personal experience in this here post.
Without being too much of a faggela, thank you for your contribution, and my sympathies and congratulations on fighting your way out of it.

As you further point out, there's no easy solution to this stuff, and public servants and NGOs (a better term for the bad actors in this space than 'charities' in my estimation) are indeed not especially motivated to endeavour to solve the problem. I don't see a solution to this that doesn't involve massive societal change.

The Hoppean libertarian way to solve this would, I suppose, be to privatise all property especially the roadways and put all homeless folks in workhouses before negotiating to deport them to a private organ-harvesting operation somewhere in Florida. Don't quite see that happening.

It seems like a few seperate questions, really- how to get back to a position where those people thrown into homelessness by bad circumstances either.. aren't, because they have more support from family/kin/community/folk... or at least are able to get back to a more workable position in life more rapidly. How to give those people currently stuck in drug addiction or other forms of hopelessness a purpose to life so they can escape them. And how to ensure that those so mentally ill or hopelessly destroyed by drugs that they can't really function at all are in asylums or the care of family so as not to harm themselves or drag the rest down.
 

littlearmalite

Neck yourself, faggot.
kiwifarms.net
Without being too much of a faggela, thank you for your contribution, and my sympathies and congratulations on fighting your way out of it.

As you further point out, there's no easy solution to this stuff, and public servants and NGOs (a better term for the bad actors in this space than 'charities' in my estimation) are indeed not especially motivated to endeavour to solve the problem. I don't see a solution to this that doesn't involve massive societal change.

The Hoppean libertarian way to solve this would, I suppose, be to privatise all property especially the roadways and put all homeless folks in workhouses before negotiating to deport them to a private organ-harvesting operation somewhere in Florida. Don't quite see that happening.

It seems like a few seperate questions, really- how to get back to a position where those people thrown into homelessness by bad circumstances either.. aren't, because they have more support from family/kin/community/folk... or at least are able to get back to a more workable position in life more rapidly. How to give those people currently stuck in drug addiction or other forms of hopelessness a purpose to life so they can escape them. And how to ensure that those so mentally ill or hopelessly destroyed by drugs that they can't really function at all are in asylums or the care of family so as not to harm themselves or drag the rest down.

There really is no easy solution, especially considering that the reasons that 'home-ing' the homeless is difficult vary from place to place. In the bible belt, for example, it's a lack of agencies designed to help those in such situations. The town druggie will never get any help save through, possibly, a local church, because there is no one there to help him. Meanwhile, back on the West Coast, there's the extremely high cost of living making it an uphill battle for those homeless such as myself, who had a decent education but a couple of blemishes on their ledger, to find work that allows them to financially support themselves off the street. I can give you at least one solution- a lot of businesses often refuse to speak to the homeless in interviews on principle. Perhaps incentives for low-skill jobs (warehousing, public works, construction) that encourage them to employ and pay homeless folks in the process of rehabilitation, so long as they stand beholden to the law and submit to drug tests, might reduce the number of 'unluckies' like myself who just needed a hand up, rather than a handout.
 

break these cuffs

This... celebration of incest is very crudely made
kiwifarms.net
Isn’t that what happened to Tim Heidecker?
There really is no easy solution, especially considering that the reasons that 'home-ing' the homeless is difficult vary from place to place. In the bible belt, for example, it's a lack of agencies designed to help those in such situations. The town druggie will never get any help save through, possibly, a local church, because there is no one there to help him. Meanwhile, back on the West Coast, there's the extremely high cost of living making it an uphill battle for those homeless such as myself, who had a decent education but a couple of blemishes on their ledger, to find work that allows them to financially support themselves off the street. I can give you at least one solution- a lot of businesses often refuse to speak to the homeless in interviews on principle. Perhaps incentives for low-skill jobs (warehousing, public works, construction) that encourage them to employ and pay homeless folks in the process of rehabilitation, so long as they stand beholden to the law and submit to drug tests, might reduce the number of 'unluckies' like myself who just needed a hand up, rather than a handout.
The only homeless program I've seen with consistent success is one that takes a holistic approach. Get them a social worker, a job counselor, in therapy, and in drug treatment. It also hooked clients up with independent charities in the area to get you basic necessities in a small apartment and back to work. The clients still have to be doing the work in their program, but it gives the ones who are serious about changing their situation the resources to actually improve in meaningful and sustainable ways. It's expensive. The only reason such a comprehensive program exists is because it is through the VA and I live in a rural, low population state and my VA doesn't suck total ass. The added benefit of the VA is the veteran also generally qualifies for some level of healthcare, education, and disability compensation benefits.

It's a complicated problem to solve and unfortunately many homeless aren't interested in solving when given the chance.
 

littlearmalite

Neck yourself, faggot.
kiwifarms.net
The only homeless program I've seen with consistent success is one that takes a holistic approach. Get them a social worker, a job counselor, in therapy, and in drug treatment. It also hooked clients up with independent charities in the area to get you basic necessities in a small apartment and back to work. The clients still have to be doing the work in their program, but it gives the ones who are serious about changing their situation the resources to actually improve in meaningful and sustainable ways. It's expensive. The only reason such a comprehensive program exists is because it is through the VA and I live in a rural, low population state and my VA doesn't suck total ass. The added benefit of the VA is the veteran also generally qualifies for some level of healthcare, education, and disability compensation benefits.

It's a complicated problem to solve and unfortunately many homeless aren't interested in solving when given the chance.
That's another big factor. I hate to talk about 'p r i v i l e g e ' but when it comes to the situation of being homeless, in most situations an armed forces veteran will have a few more advantages on his side, such as the VA. While there's nothing wrong with that, the VA has a lot more capital to throw around than Streetlight or New Avenues.

Edit because I just thought of this: The culture of America also has a lot to do with this disparity. Especially in regions like the Bible Belt, being a serviceman automatically bumps you up to the front of the line for employment opportunities and acts of kindness, if you can prove you're legit. Meanwhile, down here, a drug-addicted homeless person is simply told 'get a job' despite the fact that due to his addiction and situation, nobody wants to hire him.
 

The Last Stand

All I got was a rock.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Minute powerlevel here. Formerly homeless on the West Coast. That last point is entirely true. The shelters I stayed at made token, if any efforts to actually help the homeless improve their situation. They gave you a bed and a hot meal, and in some of the places' cases, three hot meals a day, but no bed. The entire day save for mealtimes and night, you were out on the street, and there was no effort to get you off of it. Your needs were met, so why worry about 'making things better'? You're probably on drugs or a criminal anyway, after all. I got lucky, had a bit of money squirreled away and a way to get it, though it took time. Most homeless people don't get that, and are like the folks I bummed with- stuck on the street with little in the way of motivation to change their life, and those that do lack the means to change it when they do have the motivation.
Interesting point you've made. I'm sorry that you had to deal with being homeless. I'm happy your situation has gotten better.

It shouldn't be an issue to help people out if and when they need it, same if you were down on their luck. Caring is a two way street, you would want to care about somebody, but they would have to care about themselves and the people around them.

The key word is "care". As mentioned several times on this thread, the majority of the homeless is a problem in these cities. They loiter, make a mess, disturb the peace, ask for handouts. They don't care enough about the people that want to help them; they just think about themselves. If they don't care enough to respect the property they are squatting on, why should we have to care?

They have to run a business, or live there. It's a hassle having to walk through homeless they would do ANYTHING for a quick buck: mug, panhandle, fight, even kill if need be. Eventually, the general population will get sick of it and stop going around that part of town to protect their own safety. Then, those businesses will have to shut down because they can't pay the bills.

It shouldn't be discouraged to protect your own property from homeless. If the city won't do anything about it, the community would and should. There is nothing wrong with these make shift anti-homeless precautions. Think of it like you have bugs in your house. Do you make it easier for the bugs to come in, beat around the bush or get them out and prevent new ones from coming in?

And these homeless shelters, while a step in the right direction, merely prolong their existence. Feed them, house them, that's it. Are they weeding out the ones that actually want help and get them back on their feet? Or just keep them contained in one area and spill them out in the streets? Again, many homeless don't care. They want to be a victim by any means necessary. They don't want help. So, something has to be done.

It would be more humanitarian to cast them out as they are a blight to society ruining it for the general population. The greater good for the greater number: utilitarianism. It doesn't (or shouldn't) make you a bad person; you have to live too.
 

Smarty Pants

kiwifarms.net
God, this actually makes me mad.

It’s really fucking telling that the galvanizing force for modern activists isn’t actually solving a problem, or showing compassion to the people who really need it. Instead, it’s about forcing other people to take responsibility and destroying people’s rights to determine what kind of community they have.

Let’s force other people to deal with a problem, instead of, I don’t know, fucking taking responsibility ourselves.

Modern collectivism is driven by spite, not altruism, and the results will show.
Why are you blaming collectivism? This is NIMBY culture at its finest.
The thing is, the housing crisis isn't a problem anywhere but expensive, all-white, liberal cities.
San Francisco is less than 50% white so I have no idea what you're talking about.
 

Belligerent Monk

Kiwi Farms is the Batman Universe
kiwifarms.net
I don't think its a coincidence that liberal cities treat the homeless the worst.
...the worst? I actually live out here. They get a pretty sweet effin deal.
Food stamps within a week. Within 3 days if you say its an emergency. One of, if not THE, highest SSDI payout in the nation with the assurance that you can claim your crack addiction as a legit disability and not a poor life choice, subsidized housing right in the middle of downtown provided you dont mind an SRO on a years long waiting list.

Shit, piss, shoot up, freebase, wherever your little heart desires and if anyone frowns on your lifestyle or the infestation of junkies on the streets well your local government can virtue signal by calling the complaining parties bigots.

Literally impossible to starve out here unless you're actively trying to (or are just exceptional) thanks to charitable entities like Glide, St. Anthony's, food not bombs, food banks, starbucks social feeding programs, etc.

A multitude of programs that are designed to help get people off the streets (I should know as it certainly worked for me) such as LSYS, Next Door, and Glide. Though admittedly the quality of these programs decreases as you grow older in age.

If I had to do it all over and be a bum again, God forbid, SF would be a great jumping off point.
 

Tour of Italy

kids in costume eat for $1 - valid 10/26 to 10/30
kiwifarms.net
Why are you blaming collectivism? This is NIMBY culture at its finest.

San Francisco is less than 50% white so I have no idea what you're talking about.
I’m not blaming collectivism for the homeless problem, although that’s a conversation worth having. I’m saying that the response from activists of getting rid of the rocks is characteristic of the motivation behind modern collectivism.

It’s not about NIMBY, I’m referring to the sentiment of “yes in your backyard”. I have no patience for a group of assholes who are more interested in forcing other people to deal with a problem than they are in actually spending the same amount of energy to solve it. It’s driven by resentment, not charity, and is the kind of thinking that leads to the kinds of societies that are eager to cruelly punish people for not being in line with the ideological dogma, regardless of whether or not that ideology is actually compassionate or effective.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino