This post reads to me like someone suffering from mental illness and/or personality disorder.
Sometimes people are just assholes, eh.
I don't have the data to say this is the case, but "just being an asshole" is a circumstance that is often under-considered.
It would seem like it is some kind of felony charges that are the cause. Whatever they were.
But all in all - the downside risk is huge in the US.
I do agree that if he was truly in need he would have stolen an iPhone or some designer purses.
How privileged to steal sleeping bags and food.
That wasn't any kind of necessity. He lost me there.
I guess this is the only way people with high salaries or wealth in the US can find peace with themselves - maybe that's the mental illness?
I'm not saying it's his own fault. I'm also not too happy when people point to mental illness. But this is his blog description where he mentions himself that he unpacs a 6-month journey through psychosis.
6 months of psychosis means you're mentally ill with psychosis as a symptom.
1. He was given food and shelter, which he declined - most of his comments about the food are that it's too sugary.
2. He makes it sound like he was offered more permanent shelter in Feb of 2025, which he also declined.
To be clear, I'm not making a judgment about this person - and, for that matter, the comment you replied to didn't seem to be making a judgment either, just stating a reasonable conclusion that the author suffered from mental illness.
So I'd like to know what additional resources you think would have changed this person's circumstances?
You're not making a judgment, but are somehow able to diagnose mental illness from a blog post? Wild.
It's far easier to conclude that the system has failed this person, as it habitually fails millions of people in the US, in these same circumstances. Are they all mentally ill?
And even if mental health is an issue, does that mean that they are somehow less worthy of assistance? That it's OK for a human being to live under a bridge?
The level of self-righteousness and lack of empathy in your comments is baffling.
The author literally talks about his "psychosis" that led him to his predicament, so no, I don't think it's a judgment, just the ability to read.
> And even if mental health is an issue, does that mean that they are somehow less worthy of assistance?
I have no idea where you seem to get this idea. My point is that, at least in this author's case, he has received assistance. He discusses 2 separate instances in this post where he declined resources and support - he is living under a bridge because he specifically rejected the shelter that was offered him.
Could the process of getting people support be better? Of course, but his experience dealing with the pains of bureaucracy doesn't seem much different that bureaucratic slights we all, rich and poor, have to deal with when trying to get assistance from government. FWIW I especially liked his "I identify as a woman" comment in order to get a shower.
> The level of self-righteousness and lack of empathy in your comments is baffling.
The only self righteousness I see on display is your belief that everyone else is so uncaring because we don't necessarily think the government should force this person into a shelter. I'm not judging the author at all, but I'm certainly judging you.
I think I can extend me predicament about mental illness to you also.
> My public defender reminded me of a woman I did ayahuasca with in upstate New York.
Well...
This phrase is only true because you include alcohol, otherwise it would be false. Not everybody does drugs.
What are you talking about? He specifically mentions drinking beer and doing ayahuasca in the past.
Also, can we stop stigmatizing "drug" use? Most of humanity uses "drugs" regularly for various reasons. Just because a specific "drug" which someone enjoys using recreationally is on a government list doesn't mean that they can't be a productive member of society. Live and let live.
Dignity and personal space is something the richest country in the world can afford for all of its citizens. Yet chooses not to.
People committing petty theft are largely forced to do so due to the circumstances they live in. Your judgment is better aimed at people committing white-collar crime with far worse consequences in the same city the author is located in.
> The end of March happened and so did the temporary shelter. I needed to find a new place.
> I remembered a place in San Mateo I rejected back in February. It hadn’t crossed my mind when I first arrived back in San Francisco. When I had been offered it in February, I rejected the offer because I thought it was ludicrous to think I was homeless. I come from a relatively privileged upbringing, and the idea of homelessness was a distant concept to my naive brain.
Even people who are self or outwardly destructive, do not deserve the outcome the author got.
I think a harder to answer question is, assuming there are not enough resources to help everyone in need (in a practical sense) should we prioritise the “more deserving” over the less.
Every human who is suffering deserves compassion, but should we deprioritise those who are suffering partially because of their own choices?
Opening the discussion about who is more worthy of assistance is a slippery slope towards some people not getting it due to personal biases and politics of those in power.
Poor life choices can be consequences of poor upbringing, mental health, or simply bad luck. People can be helped in different ways to avoid making those mistakes. Reform is possible, but it starts with a society and government that cares for all of its people, and doesn't marginalize some as lower-class citizens.
When Covid came to Europe, we saw on the news how Italy was hit and what doctors had to do.
Long story short: young people lived, old people died. Because doctors faced the awful decision of whom to put on life support.
In the Covid case there's a genuine moment of lack of resources (good luck training enough doctors to help, even in a utopia it wouldn't be possible). Unfortunately, since many countries are bad at distributing their own resources enough such that no one is poor, we're basically in a Covid-like situation when it comes to homeless people.
And I'm saying this as a Dutch person. As I have one family member who didn't eat for 2 weeks, fainted, got found, etc. Granted, this person doesn't want to deal with bureaucracy and is quite stubborn, among other things. But still, even in a country that has "socialism" this stuff happens. And we're not as socialistic as one might think: Polish people that come here to perform labor do so in quite awful circumstances, to the point that when they lose a finger or a thumb they get reimbursed like 300 to 500 euro's IIRC. I watched it from some Dutch documentary (probably Nieuwsuur).
Countries are just incredibly bad at resource (re)distribution.
You forget stupidity and ignorance. Sometimes people make poor life choices because they're stupid or ignorant (or both).
Yeah sure poor life choices can be consequences of poor upbringing, mental health, or simply bad luck, but that's not always the case.
Regarding this specific piece of writing and as a tech person myself, i wonder: why does this person not have some safety net savings?
Having worked in the highest-paying city (San Francisco) in the highest paying state (California) in the richest nation (USA)... Why didn't this guy build his own safety net?
Sorry - its acceptable that I do not have compassion for those suckers!
Do you suggest they should be forced to the asylum for mentally ill people?