191–200 of 260 posts
I wonder what percentage of residents support the tax increases necessary to provide such services.
Except the issue is that there is a tragedy of commons, as SF increases resources for homeless more and more homeless flock to the city thus requiring ever increasing amount of resources. I am honestly not sure what to do other than support more nationwide solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most places deal with this via border restrictions. One country with better welfare does not allow themselves to be flooded with people from other countries. This problem can not be solved by one city without the ability to restrict movement.
People from other countries do not get welfare in the USA. that is a myth. The problem with 'SF' is people flocking from conservative areas in the US that have solved their homeless problem by literally bussing people to SF. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...
Why do you say it is a myth?
"63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs Compared to 35% of native households"
https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of being passive aggressive with this psuedo-scoratic bullshit, why don't you just say outright what you mean? You're talking about covid. A global pandemic is a shitty excuse for these hyper-local phenomena. It's not covid; it's the voting public of San Francisco (and two or three other west coast cities) and the disastrous politicians they elect.
The crime spike @Justin_K alluded to was national, not hyper-local. https://www.vox.com/22344713/murder-violent-crime-spike-surg...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder what percentage of residents support the tax increases necessary to provide such services. Straw man fallacy. Why do you jump to the conclusion that the problem is financial. SF is among the top 5 richest cities in US. You really have to prove that the problem is financing, before you make the argument you made.
I think they're saying the problem is political, not financial.
If you ask people whether or not they some ostensibly good policy should be implemented, the majority will agree. When you ask taxpayers to actually cough up and pay for the services, though, the majority will get extremely upset.
A more interesting survey question would be how much people are prepared to sacrifice to make these problems go away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
«no jaywalking» and «no speeding» are two sides of the effort to maintain the order Compromise does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to any general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to become everything to all people end up by not being anything to anyone.
I don’t see how they’re two sides to anything? In the UK we have speeding laws but no jaywalking laws. You clearly don’t need both in order to balance or form a compromise.
But yet UK prohibits pedestrians on highways and some other zones and also Occupied Northern Ireland has an offense of «pedestrian through his own negligence on a road endangers his own safety» with obscure «level 3» punishment.
There were occasions when I went to SF for business snd never came out of the car, becauee of how dirty the city is.
This is absolutely understandable!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you be a bit more specific about what you mean? By itself, that drive-by comment doesn't tell us much...
There is no rise in crime, but people polled say they believe there is. It's a textbook case of Chomsky's manufactured consent phenomena. It's not a drive-by comment, it's simply concise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The theory is that if people like you are forced to see the homeless you’ll be more willing to fund helping them. Whose theory is this? Also, why do you think fighting homelessness is just a function of funding? What if activists and the solutions they propose actually exacerbate the problem.
I wasn’t suggesting the theory works. I was pointing out the discomfort is intended.
[0] I tend to agree with another poster that the threat of violence is still violent even if the victim acquiesces to avoid violence (by not confronting, fighting back, intervening, either from direct threat of retaliation by criminal or punishment from state/society for daring to be intolerant of antisocial behavior).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 "ra…
> I think a very useful skill in life is being able to read past slogans and actually understand what people are asking for I think a very useful skill in life is accurately communicating what you actually want to say so that the receiver understands your message. The responsibility of communicating is on the protestor--they are the ones trying to change things. I don't think that the extremist language had anything…
Protests have always been extreme and riots has been historically the best vehivle of change for the proletariat. People on the ground are rarely going to be amazing orators in explaining what they need and for a underprivileged group, being reasonable has never worked. You have WSPU escalating to violence for Women's Suffrage in the UK. You have the troubles in Ireland. You have the underbelly of the violent race riots in MLK's marches.
And how do you keep it from escalating? By solving the underlying grievances people have. Most people don't turn to white supremacy through a pure ideological belief that the "white race" is superior. They start with system problems - increasing health costs, increasing housing costs and lack of upwards mobility, and in their search of their solutions they find someone who tells them what they want to hear.
At the end of the day when you have people rioting in the streets the time for "rational" discourse has long passed. The people who are most loudly chanting defund the police have been trying to reform for almost _10 years_.
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…