[flagged]
It's always possible to make your substantive points thoughtfully, so please do that instead. You may not owe people who are wrong about use of buses by the homeless better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
> also offer "free hotels inside of the free buses".
Is the inciting flamewar style spark. There is nothing in the article about this specific part. Is it not bad faith argument to insist that all buses every where are used as hotels just because of a few bad experiences? The way the commenter discusses all homeless as either dangerous, addicted drugs, smelly, etc. is incredibly flamewar intending to push stigma on the topic.
If the people who are pushing unfound truths can’t be called out for it, then I guess the FUD spreaders win. The community doesn’t need me. Please scramble this username to something random. I’m out.
The way to respond to wrong comments is to refute them with better arguments and better information. This can be done without breaking the site guidelines. Of course there are downsides to this approach—it's a lot more time-consuming to patiently refute wrongness than to post it in the first place. But the downsides of breaking the site guidelines are much greater—that path basically leads to conflagration, and we'd like to avoid having this place burn to a crisp. Scorched earth is not interesting (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...).
Their username is literally trollbridge! I mean come on.