This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I feel like this could describe my north-Texas environment.
There are a few nutjobs on the train, but everyone uses the sprawling highways. There might be beggars at intersections, but no camps, no fentanyl shuffle. It gets worse if you go into Dallas proper, but not that much worse. Not in the parts remotely near a venue. Maybe it’s just too damn hot to stay on the streets.
I was looking up articles on some recent shootings in Deep Ellum, and they make all the right noises. Clamp down on anything resembling a trend. Manage the impression of safety.
It really is a constant.
I have literally never seen a Fent zombie or similar zonked out drug user in person around here. I bet they exist, the drug trade sure does, but I'd guess they remain in off-the-beaten-path drug dens that are 'known to police' so they can keep an eye on things, and the druggies don't get to wander the street.
I think there are also areas that are rural enough and mostly vacant and abandoned where you can form a homeless camp without anybody noticing easily, so there's less pressure to set up in populated areas.
And of course, the local response to the housing crunch has been... building more housing at a frenetic pace. Much to my chagrin the cow pasture near my house has been converted into a tiny little gated community of houses on postage-stamp lots, but I can at least be pretty damn sure there's unlikely to be an 'affordable housing' development thrown up within walking distance of me.
I know people don't much like it as an idea and it's probably not possible to formalize in laws, but this actually is my primary solution to homelessness. I want the police to aggressively enforce rules to chase bums out of nice city parks. I also want them to look the other way at encampments in lightly trafficked areas. My goal isn't to "criminalize homelessness", it's to keep bums out of parks and off of sidewalks.
Yep. See my comment here where the police will roll through at irregular intervals to make sure there's no nasty surprises or people hiding in the camps, but otherwise tolerate them when they're well away from civilization.
It WOULD be hard to formalize, because the way trespass laws work. The owner of a particular wooded, vacant parcel of land can tolerate a homeless camp but at any time can also have them all trespassed off if he wants to do something with it. So there could be 'tacit' agreement with the owner to tolerate them in the meantime, while reserving the right to kick 'em off if it becomes inconvenient. The other option is letting the city or county own the land but leave it undeveloped and just let the camp exist, but that opens up some potentially problematic optics. You don't want there to be any implied 'contract' between the land owner and the camped out homeless to ensure their safety as 'guests.'
The cops around here are also a bit more aggressive than average about enforcing panhandling laws, which has led to some 'interesting' tactics to evolve by the panhandlers to create some level of deniability as to why they're standing around at the intersection. Of course, summers here get hot and humid as balls so there is a natural deterrent in effect too. The panhandlers themselves are most likely to set up in places with shade.
Private landowners have many of the same worries, like liability and the condition of the property should they decide to do something with it in the future. But they also have to worry about squatter's rights in the medium term. I don't know if there are jurisdictions where they have to worry about tenant laws, but I would not be surprised.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is probably a lot of it. Having a release valve to give people an option of doing something other than the most disruptive possible thing seems very helpful. If nothing else it means when the cops hassle them they have an option of a place to go where they won't be hassled and of course won't be bothering other people. If there are literally no options available which don't involve bothering normal productive people, then why not set up shop in downtown and shit directly onto the sidewalk. The cops having a middle option of "roust them out of here and into the out of the way encampment not bothering anyone" also means there is something for them to since all of the more serious remedies have been denied them.
Back when I was in the criminal defense world there'd be the occasional 'raid' on a given encampment which was basically just a handful of officers checking the tents for fugitives, drugs, and weapons, and otherwise making sure there were no dead bodies or hazards to the occupants. It was pretty obvious that arresting the homeless guys would be doing them a favor so unless there was an actual violent resister it was most common to just seize whatever contraband was lying around in plain sight and asking if anybody needed medical attention, then leaving.
If the raids are random enough, it probably disincentivizes them acting as drug mules and such.
Don’t you want homeless encampments moving every so often to prevent buildup of unsanitary conditions? It’s not like anyone’s gonna run plumbing or garbage collection out there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link