Hacker News Reader

Comment by brosinante | Hacker News Reader

Right - because say, there's obviously no nuance required between "rough sleepers are still people" and "let's add spikes to the building entrance so we don't have to look at rough sleepers in the morning".

It's really just a bunch of hippie hypocrites, slurring their "maaaaan" and pretending everything is alright until they call the cops, and you're certainly not projecting your own view about the world, making spurious connections between sex work and horrible drug abuse to avoid putting forward any real argument besides internet outrage.

View on HN

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Consider the quality difference between this comment and one like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21346620.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Right - because say, there's obviously no nuance required between "rough sleepers are still people" and "let's add spikes to the building entrance so we don't have to look at rough sleepers in the morning".

Every single person, without exception, you included, would be really pissed off with and do everything to get rid of a rough sleeper sleeping on under their window.

Instead of adding spikes, they will call the police. They would add spikes, but the police are free.

I know this, you know this, I know that you know this, and you know that I know that you know this.

But because it is "others" getting rid of bums, people get to scoff online.

Like I said, it is one of the most deliciously hypocritical things about the internet. It causes my heart to race from excitement whenever I see someone do it.

I don't call the police when someone's sleeping rough by the dumpsters at the entry to my garage.

Everyone needs to sleep, for fuck's sakes. If they aren't being violent, or damaging property, this isn't a police issue.

If there was a social number I could call, that would get that person housed, I'd do that. But there isn't.

I think homeowners and people with families (and probably a bunch of other people) would not want a strange homeless person camping in their yard. That's totally reasonable.

Then maybe they should pay for social services, instead of pushing their problems to someone else's porch.

Also, I'm not sure the set of people that this sub-thread has been railing against (Hipsters who smoke weed, and are hypocrites for tolerating the homeless, while pushing them around) has much intersection with the demographic you described!

> Then maybe they should pay for social services

I think people pay an extraordinary amount of their income in taxes, so yeah this is happening.

> Also, I'm not sure the set of people that this sub-thread has been railing against (Hipsters who smoke weed, and are hypocrites for tolerating the homeless, while pushing them around) has much intersection with the demographic you described!

Maybe, but I certainly wouldn't blame anyone (even a weed smoking hipster) for not wanting a stranger encamped by their front door.

> Then maybe they should pay for social services

You mean like San Francisco does? They spend $241 million per year on the homeless. And yet, their homeless problem is the worst it's ever been.

You can't just throw money at social problems and hope they go away.

Please don't feed flamewars on HN. Perhaps you didn't mean to start one, though your comment upthread was needlessly provocative—but this just takes things further into hell. We're trying to go the other way.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com