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 -
There used to be cheap, minimal lodgings for those who would otherwise be homeless; they were called flophouses.
The point there, though, is that the people using them were at least trying to work and make some kind of money. They catered to transients and the poorest working class, not the homeless as we know the term now.
And the problem is not "get the guy off the street by giving him a (temporary) room in a hotel, problem solved". For the homeless who are "down on my luck, living in my car/couch surfing, otherwise trying to get my life back together", sure, this would help. If what they basically need is a bed to sleep in, a way to wash themselves, and some means of cooking basic meals or finding cheap meals while they look for work/help/have work just need to find somewhere to live, that's enough.
But the really hardcore homeless, the people who don't want to go to shelters where they are allowed to drink and take drugs, the criminals, the mentally ill - this won't do a damn thing. Even having to talk about making the rooms destruction-proof demonstrates this. You'll have people who cannot live independently because they can't take care of themselves and will clog the toilets by trying to flush rubbish down it, you'll have people who are criminals and will steal for sale anything not nailed down, and you'll have the crazy/malicious types who wreck shit just for the sake of it.
Unless you're going to discriminate between the "just need transient accommodation" and the hardcore types, this won't work. The hardcore need supervision, support, social workers, counselling, and someone calling in at a minimum once a week to check on them and make sure they aren't neglecting to eat or endangering themselves by trying to light fires in the middle of the room.
Hotels won't like or want that kind of hassle, and who can blame them? They're not set up to be asylums or halfway houses. Regular guests won't want to be staying in rooms besides the crazy and criminal. And that kind of intensive support is so expensive that the city won't/can't pay for it.
So the bill may be passed, all will congratulate themselves that they're Tackling The Problem, and it'll end up worse than ever.
At best, you'll get a new version of flophouses where dilapidated properties are turned into tiny 'rooms' with no facilities and the vouchers are going to pay what, in effect, will be a slum lord. Maybe that's better than nothing, but it's not a lasting solution.
But probably this is indeed a cynical bargaining tool by the union: give in to us on this particular demand, or we'll flood your premises with the feral and nobody sane will ever want to stay in your hotel again and you'll go broke.
More options
Context Copy link