Techies Are the New Puritans • Hacker News Board

Re: Techies Are the New Puritans

#141

Post by moocowduckquack » Thu, Dec 12, 2013, 10:53 PM UTC

yapcguy wrote: post #137

cynicalkane wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guarantee you that San Francisco does not adequately prosecute people who poop on the street or shout dirty comments at passers-by. And I guarantee you that complaining about the homeless problem does not mean a lack of compassion for an "already marginalized group". And SF is so politically correct that prosecuting members of this "already marginalized group" is a political challenge (although California has no pr…

Yes, let's all come together and help the city tackle the problem of drug abuse, an often cited precursor to becoming homeless. Together we can put petition Ed Lee and SFPD for effective non-political policing. Let's start by upholding the law in Dolores Park on the week-ends. Er, hello, anybody there? Nobody interested anymore? Hmmm.

Yes, let's all come together and help the city tackle the problem of drug abuse, an often cited precursor to becoming homeless.

I think cost and availablility of housing might have something more to do with it, seeing as rich folks doing drugs doesn't lead to homelessness nearly as much.

Re: Techies Are the New Puritans

#142

Post by Crito » Thu, Dec 12, 2013, 11:10 PM UTC

aaronem wrote: post #121

ars_technician wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think it's a valid criticism then to complain about Ayn Rand's ideas when you haven't been able to comprehend them?

Sure! -- or would you have me believe every Randite who criticizes Marx has read his impenetrable opus? Being responsible for what posterity does to one's logos is an occupational hazard of the propheting trade.

Anyone who criticizes Marx without having first studied Marx should not be thought highly of. The degree to which you have studied something is roughly proportional to how much criticism you can reasonably heap on it.

I cannot launch an in-depth criticism of, say, Finnish politics because I have not studied Finnish politics in any detail.

I can give a limited criticism of Robert Greene, because I have studied a selection of his writings.

Re: Techies Are the New Puritans

#143

Post by Crito » Thu, Dec 12, 2013, 11:18 PM UTC

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #136

Crito wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, In Philly I used to do my grocery shopping at a Trader Joes, located directly underneath an upscale apartment building, and directly across the street from two porno theaters and a salvation army. I don't think that it is fair to frame the situation as a problem of people not respecting some sort of informal 'urban decay quarantines'. That seems uncomfortably close to victim blaming to me (yes, the situation is n…

As an employer, I have a moral obligation to do my best to ensure that my employees can get to and from work safely and without fear of harassment, assault, etc. As it relates to the topic at hand, this is the only reasonable consideration for management. Period. If doing what I can to protect the physical and mental well-being of my employees requires that I make a judgement call to avoid certain areas of a city, I…

I do not disagree, but I also do not think that is relevant to this discussion. Employers should be doing or not doing lots of different things, but this discussion is not about them.

If you are certain that location of employment is essential to this discussion, consider that not everybody who commutes through dangerous or vandalized neighborhoods works in those sort of neighborhoods. Some of them instead live in those neighborhoods. A company may choose to locate itself in a clean and affluent neighborhood, but that does not resolve the problems their employees may face.

Re: Techies Are the New Puritans

#144

Post by Spooky23 » Thu, Dec 12, 2013, 11:37 PM UTC

fiter wrote: post #119

Spooky23 wrote: post #74

Funny. The Puritans are closer to the do-gooders than the general population. Puritans left Europe to form the perfect society, which they defined around their religious practice. They had all the answers and were building the city on the hill. The system worked, as long as you were an adherent. The way you solve these problems is by acting at a higher level to address root causes. Advocating for someone's "right" to…

> My family should be able to walk down the street without fear. I think we need to be extremely cautious when we think things like this. I'm not sure everyone's fear is well-founded. It seems like we can't eliminate risk, so we need to have this reasonable debate about what we'll tolerate. I don't believe in removing these people, but let's have anyone in the area behaving some fair rules. No physical assault sounds…

I agree -- I don't mean we need a complete police state. Homeless people have just as much right to be in a public space as anyone. But as an example, in my city a bunch of aggressive panhandlers will taunt and intimidate you between the entrance to a hospital near me and one of the parking areas.

When my sister worked at this hospital, it was very intimidating to have to run through a gauntlet of these people, it was really scary to be running a gauntlet of deranged drunks.

Re: Techies Are the New Puritans

#145

Post by memracom » Fri, Dec 13, 2013, 5:37 AM UTC

How on earth do these people know that the ones spitting, urinating and taunting are homeless? In some cultures spitting in public is acceptable so possibly some of these people are immigrants who haven't yet learned to fit in. Most will eventually get the message and stop spitting.

Urinating in public is a classic sign of people being drunk in public. Most of those people have the money to spend on drinks in bars so I doubt they are homeless.

As for taunting, that sounds like mental illness to me. And the same goes if someone is spitting at other people.

Now I will admit that it is a common side effect of mental illness to be homeless, but unless you actually know that someone is homeless for a fact, you are likely lumping multiple groups of people together and basically saying "This city needs to do something about all the people on the streets who are not like me".

Seems to me like better support for the mentally ill would go a long way to solve the problem, and for those who just want to sweep the problem away by moving the mentally ill somewhere else, that might be a good idea. Bringing people closer to nature in a country setting and giving them responsibility to care for farm animals, and gardens, are all known ways to heal mental illness. Sounds like these people need to put their money where there mouth is. Start an Indiegogo project to help mentally ill people in a country setting and donate your money to that rather than complaining.

Re: Techies Are the New Puritans

#146

Post by jjoonathan » Fri, Dec 13, 2013, 6:42 AM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #83

jjoonathan wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! I come from a middle-class background. Not trust-fund level, but enough to shield me from the catch-22s of poverty. It disturbs me, when I reflect back on my life, just how many "steps to success" would have been complicated had my family been lower on the economic totem pole. It disturbs me even more how many of my peers (disproportionately many of which share the same background) don't acknowledge this fac…

> It's easy to be a libertarian when the market is treating you well. I'm really glad that my brief flirtation with libertarian ideas didn't even last into my 20s. It was more like an unfortunate stepping stone from growing up in a Limbaugh household to being the radical lefty I am today. Though I try not to identify with any of that either. At least I can understand where libertarians are coming from. It's really th…

It's like we are the same person. Or maybe we just live in the same country :)

It's worth mentioning that the only libertarian I know who has been able to argue with me to my satisfaction remarkably agrees with me on "what needs to be done." I suspect political philosophy is somewhat like religion: any sufficiently dedicated person can use any sufficiently developed philosophy to support any sufficiently developed plan. Here's my list. What's yours?

1. Campaign finance reform. Turn the bribing policy from "mandatory bribes" to "optional bribes." Going to "no bribes" is probably too difficult (how to close the "cushy job upon retirement" loophole?)

2. Legislative and judicial policy focused on creating competitive markets, not placating business (#1 necessary for #2)

3. Single-payer healthcare

4. Basic income (Milton Friedman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM )

Re: Techies Are the New Puritans

#147

Post by jarrett » Fri, Dec 13, 2013, 2:52 PM UTC

cynicalkane wrote: post #112

jarrett wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, we need to distinguish between homelessness and poverty on the one hand, and crime on the other. The two may overlap for some individuals (just as wealth and crime overlap for some), but they're by no means synonymous. The legitimate complaints about the homeless in SF seem to always revolve around criminal acts: Assault and vandalism, mostly. (The less legitimate complaints are usually a variant on "I shouldn…

I guarantee you that San Francisco does not adequately prosecute people who poop on the street or shout dirty comments at passers-by. And I guarantee you that complaining about the homeless problem does not mean a lack of compassion for an "already marginalized group". And SF is so politically correct that prosecuting members of this "already marginalized group" is a political challenge (although California has no pr…

I was thinking of more serious crimes. But before you start prosecuting people for the offenses you listed, you first have to make sure there are adequate options for the people committing them.

Across the country, the homeless are routinely prosecuted for relieving themselves in public, yet in many cases they're offered no places to lawfully do so. (I don't know about downtown SF; I'm saying if there aren't bathrooms available to the homeless, you can't fairly prosecute them for going in public.)

Similarly, it's unfair to prosecute someone for shouting at passers-by if that person suffers from a serious mental illness, and has been denied treatment, as is so often the case. Indeed, our country has been defunding mental health and bolstering prisons, with the result that many would-be psychiatric patients are now being warehoused in prison.

> I really don't know what you're trying to get at with your comment. It seems to consist mostly of straw-man arguments

The article quote an SF startup CEO who seems to be calling all homeless people "degenerates." So it's hardly a straw man I'm arguing against. In case it wasn't clear, I'll be quite explicit: My argument is directed against the attitude espoused by the startup CEO in the second and third paragraphs of the article.

> a lack of interest in confronting a real problem.

Considering I explicitly agreed there was a problem and proposed an admittedly partial solution[1], I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. What is the problem I'm uninterested in confronting? The problem of homelessness? The problem of tech workers having to encounter the homeless?

[1] I proposed better community policing as a way of addressing legitimate complaints about street crime. I should have also discussed the dire need to address the root issue, which is homelessness itself. For those interested, "housing-first" is a promising model.

Re: Techies Are the New Puritans

#148

Post by jarrett » Fri, Dec 13, 2013, 2:55 PM UTC

Crito wrote: post #95

jarrett wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, we need to distinguish between homelessness and poverty on the one hand, and crime on the other. The two may overlap for some individuals (just as wealth and crime overlap for some), but they're by no means synonymous. The legitimate complaints about the homeless in SF seem to always revolve around criminal acts: Assault and vandalism, mostly. (The less legitimate complaints are usually a variant on "I shouldn…

I agree that whatever the situation, remembering that not all of the broader group are responsible for all of the publicly visible actions. It may be the homeless, bar hoppers, or students that are causing elevated crime in some area, but it is important to remember that not every homeless person, Friday night drinker, or student is a public menace by association. Still, if we want to know why the general public is d…

Agreed. It's certainly worthwhile to look into that. The fact is, people with political influence (monied downtown tech workers) are upset. That's likely to cause some kind of reaction from government, eventually. Given that, it's better to analyze the situation rationally and try to steer the government towards the right solution, than to sit in denial until we get a botched, inhumane overreaction.

Re: Techies Are the New Puritans

#149

Post by parrotdoxical » Fri, Dec 13, 2013, 3:39 PM UTC

aaronem wrote: post #130

parrotdoxical wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone REALLY likes the sound of their own empty rhetoric. While that's all fine and dandy, you should probably be aware that you don't necessarily get a choice as to "subsidize" people who contribute nothing to society because it is possible for people to actually negate things from society, all the way down from petty thugs all the way up to crooked, lawyered-up execs and/or politicians. The difference is that the…

Empty rhetoric, indeed! You seem to have attended little, and understood less, of what I've written today. Perhaps you'll unhook the stimulus-response apparatus that sits in front of your language parser, and actually read my comments, or at least a few of the shorter ones? Should you decide to do so, I'll be glad to engage you in discussion.

Nah, I understand all of what you've written, I just find it sophomoric and pretty poorly thought out. I'll be glad to engage you in discussion once YOU mentally mature past the age of fourteen.

Re: Techies Are the New Puritans

#150

Post by busterarm » Sat, Dec 14, 2013, 7:42 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #146

busterarm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's easy to be a libertarian when the market is treating you well. I'm really glad that my brief flirtation with libertarian ideas didn't even last into my 20s. It was more like an unfortunate stepping stone from growing up in a Limbaugh household to being the radical lefty I am today. Though I try not to identify with any of that either. At least I can understand where libertarians are coming from. It's really th…

It's like we are the same person. Or maybe we just live in the same country :) It's worth mentioning that the only libertarian I know who has been able to argue with me to my satisfaction remarkably agrees with me on "what needs to be done." I suspect political philosophy is somewhat like religion: any sufficiently dedicated person can use any sufficiently developed philosophy to support any sufficiently developed pl…

Very reasonable list there.

1. Campaign finance reform. I actually would like to see some steps towards a return to the older party boss systems. Think Tammany Hall. These systems were incredibly corrupt but very efficient. Moreover, the base of each party wasn't the radical fringe. This isn't ideal, but at times it worked reasonably well.

2. Electoral reform. I would like to see instant-runoff voting. I say this with the caveat that there really needs to be more than 2 major competitive parties, so I'm lumping that into this bullet point as well.

3. Patent and copyright reform.

4. Single-payer healthcare

5. Prison reform. Rehabilitation instead of Punishment. Abolition of private prisons and an overhaul of the criminal code. Could add points onto this topic for hours.

6. Tax reform. Specifically a single tax system using Land Value Tax.