Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

kron4.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 260 posts

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#111

Post by jboy55 »

desine wrote: post #39

It's just a symptom of the neo-pseudo-scientific political system. I can find plenty of articles that "fact check" my gut instinct that deporting illegal immigrants who commit violent crime will reduce the violent crime. A cursory googling will remind me that SF's ban on handguns, licensed carry, and other gun restrictions protect me. After all, if I were in danger, the police average under 8 minutes response time on…

Its funny, the comment adjacent to yours is one where Krakow Poland is shown as a paradise compared to SF. So please, go over to that thread and tell them how safer Krakow could be with unlimited guns, a insane war on drugs and the removal of their welfare system.

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#112

Post by ryanobjc »

nemothekid wrote: post #55
underseacables wrote: post #6

This is interesting given the protests. As I understand it, San Francisco is generally considered to be a very liberal and progressive city. The politicians are generally considered to be very liberal and progressive. These are the same groups, however, that want to defund the police. I don’t get it. You can want both police reform, and policing, but without the police there’s not really anyone capable, trained, or j…

> The politicians are generally considered to be very liberal and progressive. These are the same groups, however, that want to defund the police. I don’t get it. It's the fact that you see an issue like homelessness and think "this is what we pay the police for", that blinds you to the actual grievances of the protestors. Instead of actually addressing issue, most Americans have developed the crutch of just calling…

A lot of so-called “crimes” are societal creations. It’s a crime to steal food: is it a crime to let someone go hungry? Actually if that someone is your child under 18, it is in fact a crime.

There are other crimes that aren’t even considered criminal nor even enforced. For example wage theft. You cannot get your boss arrested for clocking you out before you leave. Yet your boss can have you arrested for taking from the till.

Point is, most crimes are because of society structure. Lying on a sidewalk? Setting up a tent somewhere? Living in a car or rv?

In a better structured society there would be better support than calling the police. That’s the essence of “defund the police”.

For many people with well resourced families, allowing a child or family member to live in the street because they lost their job just wouldn’t happen. Generally most people get support from their families (and friends) in this way. But what about those that don’t have those resources? Well apparently “call the cops on them” is the American solution. Great.

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#113

Post by alexjplant »

chrisseaton wrote: post #85
abystander wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, re: outlawing speeding: "imagine making driving a crime."

That's not my logic. My logic is 'crossing the road is completely reasonable, doesn't harm anyone, people should be allowed to get to the other side of the road'. That logic doesn't follow to speeding, which is dangerous and selfish. Do you realise it's not a crime in other countries? It's not in the UK and yet we have a lower road-death rate than the US. What are jaywalking laws for anyway?

> My logic is 'crossing the road is completely reasonable, doesn't harm anyone, people should be allowed to get to the other side of the road'. That logic doesn't follow to speeding, which is dangerous and selfish.

Putting oneself in the path of a multi-ton vehicle that doesn't expect you to be there and placing the onus on them to avoid committing vehicular manslaughter when you could use a space explicitly designated for pedestrians is, in fact, dangerous and selfish.

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#114

Post by youmustbeblind »

dougmwne wrote: post #44

I am currently in Warsaw. I have lived in SF. The quality of life is astoundingly different. There nearly zero visible homelessness people. There are low levels of crime and none visible. There are hardly any murders or gun crime. Not much property crime. There are quite a lot of police, but no brutality that I have heard of. I feel safe walking around at night. People have health care, higher education, and employee…

Love Warsaw but suspect your in $1000/mo+ Airbnb, alcohol abuse amongst the homeless in Warsaw is massive, and thus aggressive begging, everything else you say is correct, but your in a 2km bubble and Warsaw is a big city, even a walk to googles free coworking space will be enlightening for you (it will put you marginally outside the comfort zone briefly if you walk the quickest path over the bridge, then loop back in to an arty farty outlet shopping complex zone), even in your comfort zone I've seen some pretty horrific situations with people collapsed outside with head split open (self inflicted alcohol abuse, but I guess less scary than stringes everywhere)

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#115

Post by ubertoop »

desine wrote: post #39

It's just a symptom of the neo-pseudo-scientific political system. I can find plenty of articles that "fact check" my gut instinct that deporting illegal immigrants who commit violent crime will reduce the violent crime. A cursory googling will remind me that SF's ban on handguns, licensed carry, and other gun restrictions protect me. After all, if I were in danger, the police average under 8 minutes response time on…

"Boudin was born in New York City to Jewish parents. His parents, Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, were Weather Underground members, both convicted of murder."[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#116

Post by nemothekid »

prewett wrote: post #78
tolbish wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police reform does not mean the police should not exist. It means the police should be reformed. So that is a strawman argument. Equating police reform with being anti-police plays right into propaganda.

Then they should say "reform the police" not "defund the police". If you "defund the police", they will cease to exist, since nobody will be paying them. It might or might not be what the "defund" people are actually want, but it is what they are saying , so it isn't really a strawman argument. Personally, I assume people actually mean what they say, so I think it's more likely they just want to be "radical" and have…

>Then they should say "reform the police" not "defund the police". If you "defund the police", they will cease to exist, since nobody will be paying them.

Great idea, let's call the CEO of a grass roots protest and have their marketing department update the website copy. Do you realize what you are saying?

>Personally, I assume people actually mean what they say, so I think it's more likely they just want to be "radical" and haven't thought things through at all (as OP pointed out).

I think a very useful skill in life is being able to read past slogans and actually understand what people are asking for. Kaepernick was trying to create a message about police reform for 5 years now, and no one cared about that - only the kneeling bit. "Defund the police" is the only message that has stuck. If extremist messaging is what gets people talking about the problem then so be it. There is no CEO of protests that develops a finely tuned marketing message for what is essentially a populist movement.

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#117

Post by desine »

jboy55 wrote: post #111
desine wrote: post #39

It's just a symptom of the neo-pseudo-scientific political system. I can find plenty of articles that "fact check" my gut instinct that deporting illegal immigrants who commit violent crime will reduce the violent crime. A cursory googling will remind me that SF's ban on handguns, licensed carry, and other gun restrictions protect me. After all, if I were in danger, the police average under 8 minutes response time on…

Its funny, the comment adjacent to yours is one where Krakow Poland is shown as a paradise compared to SF. So please, go over to that thread and tell them how safer Krakow could be with unlimited guns, a insane war on drugs and the removal of their welfare system.

There's other differences between Poland and the United States, but only some of them are things you can vote on.

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#118

Post by astrange »

techrat wrote: post #109
astrange wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These comics (and the ones suggesting "defunding police" will lead to school funding) are essentially a trick because 1. reducing police funding won't lead to money going to those other places 2. half those things are done under the police department 3. the other half are much more expensive than police funding. Affordable housing is a notable case of the last one, it's very very expensive to build in SF and nobody a…

> These comics (and the ones suggesting "defunding police" will lead to school funding) are essentially a trick because 1. reducing police funding won't lead to money going to those other places 2. half those things are done under the police department 3. the other half are much more expensive than police funding. Evidence does not support your claims. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/19/alexandria-k... S…

This is "half those things are done under the police department". Defunding the police department would prevent this.

If you want to hire social workers, which is a good idea, say that instead.

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#119

Post by jboy55 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #105

San Francisco has some of the most expensive real estate in the country. [1] When I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area like two decades back and looked at housing prices there, SROs[2] were like $1000/month or so. That's a single room, not an apartment. San Francisco has really lovely weather most of the year. It has highly desirable weather if you are homeless: Not much rain and mild temperatures year round.[3] I t…

To ignore the relation between homelessness, the high cost of housing, the gentrification as tech people like to live authentic and the absolute lack of building, and to pretend its welfare and the lack of guns is just blindness.

People in SF have to either kick the tech companies out, or allow a massive amount of high density housing in.

Re: 70% of San Francisco residents say quality of life has declined: poll

#120

Post by chrisseaton »

alexjplant wrote: post #113
chrisseaton wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not my logic. My logic is 'crossing the road is completely reasonable, doesn't harm anyone, people should be allowed to get to the other side of the road'. That logic doesn't follow to speeding, which is dangerous and selfish. Do you realise it's not a crime in other countries? It's not in the UK and yet we have a lower road-death rate than the US. What are jaywalking laws for anyway?

> My logic is 'crossing the road is completely reasonable, doesn't harm anyone, people should be allowed to get to the other side of the road'. That logic doesn't follow to speeding, which is dangerous and selfish. Putting oneself in the path of a multi-ton vehicle that doesn't expect you to be there and placing the onus on them to avoid committing vehicular manslaughter when you could use a space explicitly designat…

Why is your default that the road belongs to the car in the first place? Why should people need to stick to limited spaces 'designated' for them? How do you think we manage it in the UK without these laws and why do you think our road-death rate is lower?
Post reply on HN