feels like an extra janitor would be a better solution here rather than a surveillance state.
Your guess is probably not correct either.
The cameras may literally save lives. I form this opinion from experience, do you?
The cameras being there sucks. Dying is worse.
Using the footage for petty offenses sucks and shouldn't happen. I just don't think the example invokes any kind of feeling of injustice as seemingly intended. And wanted to point it out that I didn't believe it was the only reason.
Having said all that, a janitor only fixes the one problem. It also introduces new potential problems. A nosy janitor can do a lot more harm to disadvantaged people than a camera. And 24 hour janitorial is more like 4 janitors, not 1. Who is paying for them?
Just don't spit, especially indoors. Simple.
Let's move on from spitting, as it's a dull example, but into behaviors in general. How do you get someone to stop doing something? Punishment does not work. Telling someone not to do something only encourages them to do it even more. So, like most other solutions, we can instead work off incentivizing positive action. We saw this with smokers, you give them a designated area, a place to put out their smokes, alongside restrictions like not smoking indoors, and you've got a winning combination. Likewise, we need thorough solutions to behavioral problems, not "easy" ones. Easy ones don't last long. Habits remain.
If cameras save lives, why do you not have a camera in every room in your home?
Punishment does work. It works to get those people out and get people who can be decent human beings in. It is punishment to the other residents to let it continue unabated.
Your camera comment is odd. I know the cameras saved lives. Witnessed it with my own two eyes. You also don't know what cameras exist in my home, maybe I do have one in every room? It is a deterrent that reminds a person who may think twice about their actions because of the increased probability of being punished.
Go walk through some social housing without cameras while wearing expensive shoes and jewelry. Do it daily for a year. That will change your perspective, assuming you are still around to provide it.
A rational human would have seen that a stranger was accessing the building using a disabled person’s credentials with armfuls of groceries and correctly surmised the situation, or made a quick call to confirm that it was authorized. Instead, a formal process was initiated where one possible outcome is that a low income blind person is evicted. That didn’t happen, but it is a waste of resources to have a formal process to have a blind person file a report explaining their shopping needs.
No, its not.
> because you hate capitalism
I don't hate capitalism any more than I hate childhood; it has its purpose and needs to be moved beyond.
Like feudalism, though, it creates a class that is very interested in preventing that at the expense and who, insofar as they act on that interest, are bad actors and need to be held accountable.
> Like feudalism, though, it creates a class that is very interested in preventing that at the expense and who, insofar as they act on that interest, are bad actors and need to be held accountable.
Apologies for the misunderstanding of your position.
I hear you. I also have empathy for people who clean public bathrooms.
I strongly suspect the “rich” and “upper class” aren’t the ones putting the “out of order” signs on the doors. It’s the workers at the store who are responsible for cleaning them.
I suspect they’re tired of being responsible for cleaning up the stuff that happens in there. Feces smeared on the walls, wads of paper shoved down in the urinal and urine overflowing and flooding the floors. Vomit everywhere.
If I had to hazard a guess, if you personally organized a volunteer group, went around that neighborhood, and provided reliable bathroom cleaning services and repair you’d start seeing more bathrooms.
Next time you walk by one, ask the person at the front desk if they’ll let you clean it.
Tell me, whose side are you really on?
I wasn’t addressing anything beyond the generalization offered that “personal accountability is becoming bourgeoisie [sic]”, which was the only claim in the post I responded to. If I want to discuss the specifics further upthread, I’ll respond to something discussing those specifics.
Assuming that I had a message other than what I said which is not reasonably related to either what I said or what I said it in response to is... quite a reach just to have something to argue about. I’m sure you can find someone actually saying something you can argue against, rather than something that requires you to conjure a fantasy point just to get upset and aegue against it.
You're acting as if poor people are inherently helpless and incapable of following basic rules. Most people are going to have friends or family that would rather spare a couch rather than them live off the streets. If not, he can live in a shelter. Either way, he's going to have to learn how to respect other people's property if he wants to stay.
In the meantime, someone else on the wait-list for public housing who is willing to follow rules can move into now-vacant apartment.