No. 0004. Pretermit new problems
Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)
151–160 of 174 posts
Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any concrete examples of this? I'm having trouble picturing these.
I think GP means "masking" instead of "mashing"? And then: Conservative: "homelessness is a problem! make homelessness illegal and people will get homes because they are homeless by choice!" ("is there any evidence that people are homeless by choice?" *crickets*) Liberal: "defund the police!" ("but who would deter petty crime?" *crickets*)
Nope, often it is mashing their feelings into balls of hatred and vitrole at groups of people instead of situations. There is a lack of nuance and a disdain for it.
Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think GP means "masking" instead of "mashing"? And then: Conservative: "homelessness is a problem! make homelessness illegal and people will get homes because they are homeless by choice!" ("is there any evidence that people are homeless by choice?" *crickets*) Liberal: "defund the police!" ("but who would deter petty crime?" *crickets*)
I grew up in Minsk (2M people) and seen obviously homeless person just once in my entire life. It's not illegal to be factually homeless, but illegal to do everything homeless people usually do, unlike in Berlin, where I live nowadays, like sleeping outdoors, camping (insane!), being intoxicated etc. In Minsk such people instantly removed into correction facilities, thus cities are clean and more importantly safe.
So that's a great example of conservatives preferring to punish people instead of actually solving the problem. Minsk people must live in fear of losing their homes, knowing that if they do, they will be disappeared.
Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think many people are being homeless by choice no matter how comfortable it is. Perhaps it makes more of them choose homelessness over suicide but I don't think it's making anyone choose homelessness over homefulness. You know what does though? Making it really hard to get a home. That makes more people homeless. I hope that's obvious.
Quite a few are homeless by choice. There are shelters available but they choose not to go because the shelters ban drugs. So they choose drugs over shelter.
It's easy to frame it like this to portray them in a negative light. Many also ban pets, enforce strict curfews, force you to live in close quarters with people who you don't know and who can be dangerous to you, demand you practice their religion, separate you from partners, subject you and what they allow you to keep of your belongings to frequent searches.
I don't know about you, but that sounds horrible to me. I don't see how anyone can be surprised or aggrieved that some people choose to stay away from them under those conditions.
Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do this at work a lot and often the problem goes away because the stakeholders above me couldn't agree on the problem being important enough to solve for a long enough time. When a problem survives this, usually it's worth solving.
I normally don't write stuff like this but I did not expect 9 upvotes. I expected a karma hit (but I prefer to just write honestly what I think). That's informative, thank you.
What you said isn't controversial. Its very often the case that people fret and worry about things that aren't 'problems' but instead are just 'stuff they don't like'. In the former case, ignoring it will often make it worse. In the latter case, if you wait a bit then people move on to other things to complain about.
Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
I grew up in Minsk (2M people) and seen obviously homeless person just once in my entire life. It's not illegal to be factually homeless, but illegal to do everything homeless people usually do, unlike in Berlin, where I live nowadays, like sleeping outdoors, camping (insane!), being intoxicated etc. In Minsk such people instantly removed into correction facilities, thus cities are clean and more importantly safe.
So that's a great example of conservatives preferring to punish people instead of actually solving the problem. Minsk people must live in fear of losing their homes, knowing that if they do, they will be disappeared.
The picture is more complex. It is possible that Minsk has some shelters, rehabs and psychiatric wards that can house many of the homeless anyway, and policies that incentivize them to use one of such options instead just building a camp. (IDK)
American homelessness problem is massively fueled by lack of inpatient psychiatric healthcare. People who are clearly out of their mind are allowed to live like wild animals, so that no one violates their rights not to be institutionalized.
While the asylums of yesterday were quite often bad, this is no better and a balance should be reached. Instead the pendulum just swung wildly from extreme A to extreme B.
---------------------------------------------------------
Edit: I must come back to your statement:
"Minsk people must live in fear of losing their homes, knowing that if they do, they will be disappeared."
There is a hidden assumption in there, namely, the expectation that if someone loses their home, their inevitable fate is to camp in the street, start fires etc. It might be so in your jurisdiction, but that is not really true worldwide. Many places in the world will try to help you somehow, at least up to a point.
Of course, if you have such help available and still refuse to make use of it and instead start living in an encampment and bother/harass other people, you aren't an innocent victim anymore, but a general nuisance. In that case, why shouldn't you be punished for your anti-social behavior? Unless you are insane, of course. In that case, a hospital should it be.
Ultimately it is about which level of antisocial behavior under which conditions is tolerated by which society. I noticed that the American left is really into glorification of antisocial behaviour, which it re-interprets as a creative rebellion against the capitalist society that should never be corrected by anyone. This worldview is much less widespread in Europe and almost absent in Asia.
Outside the US, you will often get at least some help, but if you turn it down, the law will prefer peace of the commons to your right of doing whatever you feel like. E.g. most countries will at least try kick smelly people out of libraries and public transport, because it is an expensive, subsidized commons that shouldn't be repulsive for median customers, who are quite often poor-ish themselves.
Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)
#157Seems related to the four risk management strategies: - Avoidance - Mitigation - Transference - Acceptance
Sounds like the classic 5 stages ... Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance.
I don't have a problem.
It's YOUR problem, actually.
I do have a problem, but problems are good if you think about it.
No matter how many problems I fix, there is always a new problem...
These problems aren't that problematic, they're trade-offs.
Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
I grew up in Minsk (2M people) and seen obviously homeless person just once in my entire life. It's not illegal to be factually homeless, but illegal to do everything homeless people usually do, unlike in Berlin, where I live nowadays, like sleeping outdoors, camping (insane!), being intoxicated etc. In Minsk such people instantly removed into correction facilities, thus cities are clean and more importantly safe.
So that's a great example of conservatives preferring to punish people instead of actually solving the problem. Minsk people must live in fear of losing their homes, knowing that if they do, they will be disappeared.
Such people always have a choice of taking a job at a state factory and a room at its dorm plus enough salary to stay poor but fed and housed. If they refuse such option and willingly deny social norms, they're detained, sent to a labor camp, and forced to work there without right to leave, basically a prison. The good ol' socialist way of solving a problem.
Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any concrete examples of this? I'm having trouble picturing these.
I think GP means "masking" instead of "mashing"? And then: Conservative: "homelessness is a problem! make homelessness illegal and people will get homes because they are homeless by choice!" ("is there any evidence that people are homeless by choice?" *crickets*) Liberal: "defund the police!" ("but who would deter petty crime?" *crickets*)
Finishing the conservative sentence but not the liberal sentence? "Fewer armed police responsibilities for nonviolent issues such as homelessness" is more clearly the liberal position.
A person in my family started one of the first rape crises centers in the U.S. She always said "Police need to be social workers, and social workers need to be police" summarizing the issues each faced most that they were poorly prepared for all those generations ago.
Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think GP means "masking" instead of "mashing"? And then: Conservative: "homelessness is a problem! make homelessness illegal and people will get homes because they are homeless by choice!" ("is there any evidence that people are homeless by choice?" *crickets*) Liberal: "defund the police!" ("but who would deter petty crime?" *crickets*)
I grew up in Minsk (2M people) and seen obviously homeless person just once in my entire life. It's not illegal to be factually homeless, but illegal to do everything homeless people usually do, unlike in Berlin, where I live nowadays, like sleeping outdoors, camping (insane!), being intoxicated etc. In Minsk such people instantly removed into correction facilities, thus cities are clean and more importantly safe.
Does not sound particularly safe to be deported to a correction facility.