SF tech bro: ‘I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, despair of homeless’ • Hacker News Board

Re: SF tech bro: ‘I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, despair of homeless’

#491

Post by dang » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 6:59 AM UTC

maratd wrote: post #439

chris_wot wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, then, we have a fundamental difference of opinion. If I see someone make claims that the vast majority of homeless people are completely unhelpable because of a specific example which they have observed anecdotally, then I'll ask for empirical evidence. Nobody is calling that person a liar. Asking someone for evidence does not necessarily mean they consider that person a liar. They may believe they are mistaken…

> You should ask yourself why you consider asking for evidence on a discussion forum rude. It sounds like you feel it's overly confrontational. I already answered this question, multiple times. It has nothing to do with being confrontational. It has to do with being RUDE. Rude: discourteous or impolite, especially in a deliberate way [1] [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rude Nobody owes you ANY citations. Y…

You made a legit and helpful point upthread, but then your comments became at least as bad as the ones you were criticizing. This is just awful stuff, and I'm sure you know better. Please don't be uncivil on HN in the future.

Re: SF tech bro: ‘I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, despair of homeless’

#492

Post by DanBC » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 8:56 AM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #118

DanBC wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't work unless the person wants to recover. That's apart from the human rights violation.

Human rights clearly aren't a big deal to most governments, the involuntary commitment mentioned by the GP is a perfect example.

I don't know about the US, but in the UK there's a bunch of protection built in to the system and it's been tested by the courts, including European court of human rights.

Re: SF tech bro: ‘I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, despair of homeless’

#493

Post by DanBC » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 9:00 AM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #116

DanBC wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't work unless the person wants to recover. That's apart from the human rights violation.

Clue me in, what is the human rights violation? Or better yet, in descending order what are they in regards to those needing help but refusing it and possibly endangering themselves or others?

People have the right to decline medical treatment, even if it means they will die as a result. This can only be over ridden if the person doesn't have the capacity to make that choice - if they're a child, or have a learning disability[1] or have a severe mental illness that affects their ability to make choices.

Re: SF tech bro: ‘I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, despair of homeless’

#494

Post by DanBC » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 9:01 AM UTC

Coding_Cat wrote: post #286

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me everything about your life, and I could envision a situation where an aspect of yourself could be considered too "abnormal" or "dangerous" in action or thought to be left untreated. If people haven't harmed anybody, then they themselves shouldn't be harmed, even if professionals believe it is help. Removing that barrier opens the door to arbitrary treatment and involuntary commitment, the likes of which not s…

Well, again, involuntary commitment for mental afflictions is a thing. So it has surely been a thing in the 20th and 21st century. Of course, you don't get commited on basis of a diagnosis alone (AFAIK), but I would expect a similar criteria of "a danger to themselves or others" to be set for drug abuse as has been set in that case.

"Danger to yourself" pretty much means "suicidal".

Re: SF tech bro: ‘I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, despair of homeless’

#495

Post by ctlby » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 2:04 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #485

ctlby wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that no amount of money will solve the problem with San Francisco's current approach (whatever that is). If they spend $50 million with zero effect, and they spend $100 million with zero effect, and they spend $150 million with zero effect, where do you guess the problem stands at the $200, $250, $500 marks?

What are you talking about? How do you know the approach has zero effect?

Check out the chart on page 18. $1.5 billion spent over 10 years, and the homeless population... increased! What a humiliating statistic for anyone who thinks this can be solved with mental-health treatment, rehab, empathy, or [homily of choice].

Re: SF tech bro: ‘I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, despair of homeless’

#496

Post by doki_pen » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

jgroszko wrote: post #305

doki_pen wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 38. I can relate to millennials, but I'm not one. I know many people my age that can't relate at all.

It helps to keep in mind these groups are just constructs to help sociologists talk about large groups of people. While they're good for talking about differences in generations, no single person is going to fit into any generational group perfectly. On top of that, it doesn't help that news outlets like to oversimplify these things for juicy headlines.

You're right. It's just one categorization of many. I might have more in common with a person who grew up in the same socioeconomic situation as me, but is separated by 30 years, then with someone born the same year as me with a vastly different socioeconomic background.

Re: SF tech bro: ‘I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, despair of homeless’

#497

Post by sp332 » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 3:42 PM UTC

nvader wrote: post #474

sp332 wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being really fragile about this. A "bro" is someone who's out of touch, not a sub-human creature. If this person doesn't want to be called bad names, they should stop being bad things.

Consider the analogy raised by the parent, reapply your advice, and it should make you cringe.

Gee, I didn't realize tech bros had their civil and human rights trampled. "Tech bro" is nothing like the n-word. The accusation is that they're inhumane, not sub-human. The guy in the article is in favor of maintaining a displaced subclass for the good of the economy, and using force to keep them quiet. He's closer to a slavery apologist than a slave.

Re: SF tech bro: ‘I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, despair of homeless’

#498

Post by mwnz » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 4:30 PM UTC

gregp4 wrote: post #362

mwnz wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh cry me a river. There is a theme evolving, and the media have latched onto it. Are lawyers and school teachers continually writing these self-righteous 'open letters'? Are lawyers and teachers of a growing, sufficient mass in a city that is struggling to serve a great proportion of it's population (for various, complicated reasons)? No. Life is easier for 'us' than the mentally ill, the addicts, and those with les…

>Prestige and respect? Earn it I and countless other programmers have put in thousands of hours unpaid labor to produce public goods in the form of open source software. For that alone I and my profession deserve respect (compare us to dentists, most in the US won't even take medicaid, let alone perform free dental work), and especially respect from these same media outlets that rely on the fruits of our unpaid labor…

You're missing the point. And it's a big point to miss.

Re: SF tech bro: ‘I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, despair of homeless’

#499

Post by mwnz » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 4:57 PM UTC

marknutter wrote: post #240

This fucking sucks. I know Justin personally, and to see the vitriol being spewed forth at him makes my stomach churn. His blog post was clearly written out of frustration, and lacked nuance, but in no way does it justify the response it has received. None of these scathing articles or drive-by tweets are asking for clarification. Instead, his character is being assassinated as an extension of the growing fervor arou…

As a tech worker living in San Francisco, his 'open letter' infuriated me. If anything, it makes my life here more difficult, and reflects poorly on the industry I work in. Unintended consequence? Probably. But I will happily vent my frustration with his callousness, lack of tact and compassion, just as he vented his frustrations.

Re: SF tech bro: ‘I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, despair of homeless’

#500

Post by mindslight » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #464

mindslight wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the core of the idea could work with public money as well. In the short term, I agree it's not wise to divert public money to such an experiment. But if it worked over the long term, it would align incentives better. Currently, a city spending more money on its homeless population creates positive feedback - more people come for the better benefits. It's in no single city's interest to spend too much, especia…

I disagree that spending on the homeless incentivizes homelessness, or homeless migration. If the benefits were wildly better one city over, maybe, but honestly the biggest thing is the weather: winter doesn't kill you in California. Everything else is secondary. Homeless people live where they do for the same reason renters or homeowners do: friends, family, history, allure, and so on. If, say, Jackson Hole, Wyoming…

If neighborhood/history/allure are important, how would the outer bay area be different than LA? I would expect most friends would also be homeless, so they could move as well. And I would think city density is important, to partake in a better economy of community/trashing/begging/stores.

$500/mo would be a "wildly better benefit", no? And around that magnitude, the feasibility of building proper shelters is on the horizon. What I'm really driving at here is a way to partially fund the homeless problem (phrased in terms of getting them out of your city), that then bootstraps itself into a way of fully funding the homeless. I doubt anybody really wants people to be living on the(ir) streets, they just aren't willing to jump into paying the full cost to change that.