Woke San Francisco Liberal meets reality. Amazing.

submitted by [deleted] from twitter.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Statistically, San Francisco is the 37th most violent city in the United States.

Which is high, but also behind Dallas, Oklahoma City, KCMO, Wichita, Cincinatti, Tulsa, Nashville, Indianapolis, and Memphis.

"The dude saw a violent crime" is not somehow "proof" that San Francisco is a hellhole. A lot of people have seen a violent crime. I know I have. I wasn't in San Francisco, either.

[–]StillLessons 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I second what ID10T says.

I live in one of the cities you mention with higher statistical violence than SF. I have a friend who used to live in SF and I visited him there. While visiting him, I personally witnessed a dude squatting and taking a dump (11 am, broad daylight) in the gutter outside the door of my friend's building. This was hardly one of the worst neighborhoods in SF. Not the top of the line, but not skid row either. "Average" SF, if you will.

Living in one of the cities you cite, I cannot think of anywhere in this city where I can find behavior like that. I've been in some very bad neighborhoods in this city, and it's sketchy as hell, no doubt. But there isn't that same level of degradation where people are crapping in the street with no human dignity remaining.

San Francisco is spiritually circling the drain. They have consistently made decisions to support and celebrate the most degraded of human behaviors, paid for by the (decreasing number of) productive people, who end up paying indirectly for the destruction of their own city.

This model doesn't work. It continues to shock me that anyone at all who possesses any sort of capital lives in these cities any more. There is clearly a personality type among humans who are absolutely incapable of recognizing when their ideals not only don't help, but are the direct cause of the increasing misery they are personally witnessing with each passing day.

This doesn't help anyone with our faith in the capacity of human beings for genuine evolution.

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yeah, I think it's probably true that there's more public shitting in SF than in any other city in the country. I've got friends living there, and they've all reported that.

In my view, problems like that are entirely structural. San Francisco is a fully-walkable, barely-drivable city where none of the businesses provide public bathrooms. When you've got to go, and you're two miles from home (assuming you have one), and there's absolutely nowhere to go but the sidewalk... you go on the sidewalk.

And it's up to them to find a solution to that. Whether that's taxpayer-funded toilets, or a requirement that private businesses maintain a public toilet, or tax breaks for private businesses to maintain public toilets, or... whatever.

You talk about faith and spirituality and degradation and evolution and dignity... and really, the conversation just needs to be about toilets.

[–]StillLessons 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I've been a lot of places in the US - and in the world generally including genuinely poor third-world countries - where toilets are not easily accessible. It's only in a very small subset of those places where this complete level of breakdown occurs. Most places, people figure out how to work around the inconvenience without public shitting. People don't shit in front of other people. It's a powerful and near-universal social norm. While San Francisco is not alone in this, it is the only place in the US or Europe where I've seen it happen, and it's not about toilet availability; it's a segment of the population being so thoroughly de-moralized (drug addicts and mentally ill) that they've completely lost touch with social norms. Rather than bring them back within the social norms, however, the city (as several others are also doing to a lesser level - L.A., NYC, Seattle, etc) is accommodating every decline in social function so these people never have to learn responsibility. If you keep letting a subset of your population do whatever the fuck they want while giving them only 100% positive feedback, this is one of your endpoints.

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The way I see it, you can train a dog not to shit in the house, and you can scold a dog for shitting in the house. But if you leave your dog locked in the house for 48 hours while you go camping, and you come back and there's shit in your house, there's no point in yelling "GODDAMN IT OSCAR YOU SHAT IN THE HOUSE." What, did you think you bought one of those non-shitting dogs?

You're absolutely right: not shitting in front of other people is a basic social norm. Not only that, it's probably instinctive. It didn't break down because people just woke up one day and said "to Hell with social norms." It broke down because there was nowhere to shit.

And we're not going to solve it by going "GODDAMN IT OSCAR YOU SHAT ON THE SIDEWALK." You can take Oscar to jail forty times; you can tase him and beat him with a billy club; in the end, nothing will do any good until Oscar has access to a fucking toilet.

[–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If it's about nowhere to shit, why did you and I not shit in the streets when we were in SF?

You're overemphasizing the secondary problem. The primary problem is that the "social services" system which is supposed to rehabilitate people who end up on the bottom is profoundly dysfunctional.

There are two groups: the addicts and treatable mentally ill, and the mentally ill for whom treatment on an outpatient basis is ineffective. For the first group, social services needs to be re-oriented away from "affirming the person no matter what" to "having the person learn the behaviors required to live in less squalid conditions as a requisite of receiving benefits". For the second group, we need to accept that involuntary institutionalization is an unfortunate and sad necessity for these people, preferable to them imposing their unacceptable (and far too often dangerous) lifestyles upon the broader population. Them wandering the streets is not helpful for them any more than it is for the rest of us living and working around them.

[–]Hematomato 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If it's about nowhere to shit, why did you and I not shit in the streets when we were in SF?

Well obviously there are plenty of places to shit if you have money. Just pop into any bar or restaurant, buy a beer, take a dump, and then either drink the beer or don't.

If you don't have money, you pretty much have one option. The sidewalk.

Like I said, if you're talking about "teaching the behaviors required to live in less squalid conditions," well, you're putting the cart before the horse. It doesn't do anyone any good to be "taught" to use a toilet if they can't find a toilet.

[–]ID10T 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Personally I think if you can’t afford to take a shit in private you shouldn’t be allowed to live in that place. Options should be, leave the city, or go to jail or an institution. The latter two options are expensive, but undesirable enough that most will take the first option.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Expensive to enforce.