121–130 of 188 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And are they aren't preventing anyone from doing that.
by papering over the problem with a short-term fix for their employees only, they remove public demand for a long-term, public solution
I don't get it. The buses are cutting down on personal driving (a universally acknowledged evil), and paying for permits to use the stops (generating revenue for the city). Would these people rather the Google employees all drive personal vehicles, increasing wear and tear on the roads, congestion, pollution, etc., costing the city money? Also, is it really the companies fault that the value of housing in the area is…
Question 1: Do you think the underlying complaints of the protests, which are presumably about problems like gentrification, are valid? Question 2: If so, what do you propose the people do? As to one of your questions: Presumably, the protesters want the city and those companies to sit together and create a public transport system that works for everybody. It's fine to have lines and stops specifically laid out to be…
It's not the case that everyone would win more, IMO.
It is entirely unclear what they are protesting, other than 'not working at Google.' The alleged trespass of using 'public infrastructure for private profit' is unsupported. People pick up and drop off people at the sidewalk (required, no stopping in the middle of the street). The staged appearance of a guy who is a union organizer (reported elsewhere) added a bit of melodrama. Looking at the action critically, what…
When such employees are not being recruited from other places, they are being recruited from SF. Google and Facebook have a problem that their offices are in FUCKING BORING monoculture suburbs which young, smart, energetic people do not typically want to live in. And their big, monolithic companies aren't a great match for the culture of SF, though companies like Twitter have been trying to make it work by insisting that SF is doomed without them.
One has to ask, why do people want to live in SF rather than Mountain View or Palo Alto? Is it because those places are FUCKING BORING?
Yes. And they are not FUCKING BORING because they lack craft cocktail places, they have a monoculture that is unattractive to people accustomed to diversity.
That is why these buses are gross, and that is why it is gross that people who just recently moved to SF after rents roughly doubled think that people should just get a better job if they want to live here, because who ever lived in SF except rich people?
How can someone who moved here as a student and began trying to build a life for themselves in the bay area ever fit without basically letting Larry, Sergei, and Zuck declare the sort of job that people who live in SF can have?
How can people ever own a home in this city if the only way is by being [un]lucky and boring enough to be at a behemoth company or a random startup that couldn't easily be predicted to hit, and take a bunch of stock away?
Also, if SF becomes a place where most people who can afford to live here have to work in another city, it will be largely devoid of employed people during the day. There will be jobs serving coffee in the morning, dinner in the evening, mostly stocked by people who live in the east bay, and we're likely to see some of the crime problems that Oakland has which I believe directly have to do with this, specifically that lots of people who pay rent and mortages in Oakland have to go to another city to do so, on woefully overloaded transit systems that are struggling for funding, leaving the city largely full of unemployed people and violent police officers during the day.
SF is an amazing place and I can't imagine why anyone would only want to work here during the first and last hours of the day, when I do my best to be here as many hours of the day as possible, though I can't afford to live here.
Plus a lot of these assholes don't even like SF. It's like a fancy fucking pair of shoes for them to brag about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious, why the "lol" for income inequality?
I recognize it's a real thing I just can't stand the mindset that such a word creates. If income/money is an issue for you, go out and do something to change that, don't sit around and be toxic against people that aren't having income issues.
It's ok, you can call them poor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The bus operators — private companies like Google, Facebook, Apple and Genentech — would pay for permits to use the Muni stops Looks like that issue is being taken care of.
Yeah, it's nice to know that if I break the rules I can get the city to retroactively change them for me, assuming I have enough money.
What if the permits are issued with a retroactive start date (and proportionately large initial issuance fee)? Perhaps one that extends back to when each company started stopping in city bus stops? How would you feel about that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dropped off and picked up my wife at the bus stop by 24th Street BART every workday for over a year and never had anyone challenge me about it.
Ton of people are downloading music and movies without paying, and no one challenge them. Does that mean it's legal ?
> If you tried to pick up and drop off someone in a bus stop everyday, you would get ticketed for it.
And I can say, from direct personal experience, that the claim is wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious, why the "lol" for income inequality?
I recognize it's a real thing I just can't stand the mindset that such a word creates. If income/money is an issue for you, go out and do something to change that, don't sit around and be toxic against people that aren't having income issues.
You're not completely wrong: many of these people have made mistakes, but the nature of how those mistakes get compounded can pretty thoroughly screw someone who was born with a bit of a handicap and who got off to a bad start.
So while it is possible to overcome these setbacks (and people should be encouraged to do so), it's not something one should be glib about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious, why the "lol" for income inequality?
I recognize it's a real thing I just can't stand the mindset that such a word creates. If income/money is an issue for you, go out and do something to change that, don't sit around and be toxic against people that aren't having income issues.
Your comment ("lol income inequality") is dripping in upper-class privilege, as if you're the one suffering when poor people bring up things like the disappearing middle class & tax breaks for the wealthy -- because they're being "toxic".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious, why the "lol" for income inequality?
I recognize it's a real thing I just can't stand the mindset that such a word creates. If income/money is an issue for you, go out and do something to change that, don't sit around and be toxic against people that aren't having income issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seemed to miss the guys point. If you park somewhere illegally and someone blocks you in, getting upset that they are doing something illegal while ignoring the fact that you are doing something similarly illegal everyday is pretty weird imo...
It's a pretty generic 'taking the law in your own hand' argument though. If you illegally double park and as consequence, I illegally shoot you and your whole family, debating what I did is besides the point since the real debate should be about why you double parked.