It's a great quote. It's meaningless when your wife gets assaulted by some drugged out homeless person in a place that she should be safe in. Or when you literally get harassed just walking downtown.
The law, in its majestic equality, also forbids rich and poor alike to aggressively demand cash, discard needles at random, and threaten violence at everyone who passes by.
If my family gets harassed or threatened by a person then it is a problem whether the person is homeless or not. It has nothing to do with hating homeless people.
Lived in Seattle for seven years and will return in another three. Encountered many homeless people in that time. Volunteered for the Tax Amazon project to raise funds for socialized housing. Donated a chunk of my salary to Plymouth Housing, a regional housing-first charity. Developed a deep disdain for other privileged techies who were utterly unwilling to engage with the externalities caused by them moving to the city.
Probably not, because housing developments cost hundreds of millions of dollars and individual voluntary charitable donations are not a good vehicle for tackling this problem. Fortunately with taxation and collective action this problem is tractable, but you don't believe in that approach either. You're just here to snipe. In another comment you ask someone how many homeless people they've invited into their yard. You're just being mad online. What a pathetic waste of time.
Not at all. I am just pointing out that there is a lot of virtue signalling going on and very little problem solving. Don’t you agree that inviting a single homeless person into your home or backyard will actually solve a real problem? Imagine if 30k people decided to do that? It would take 30k homeless people off the street! Just like that. So why don’t you go ahead and do that? Show leadership and inspire others? Be a hero!
the phrase "virtue signalling" is just "asshole signalling".
if you want to reach anyone vaguely on the left end of the political spectrum they're not going to listen to much after you drop that phrase. but you will score point with people who already agree with you.
which is a whole lot like the very thing that you're trying to criticize.
> You are not a serious person and bring nothing of value with you.
Whoa - you can't post like that to HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
You posted flamewar comments in other parts of this thread and have now crossed into personal attack. That's seriously not ok and we ban accounts that do this.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. As a bonus, it will make your arguments more convincing because then you won't be discrediting them with flamebait and swipes.
Pointing the finger at others is not a good place to start with this. You broke the site guidelines egregiously and repeatedly, regardless of what other people did. Please fix this first, and then if you have a point or a question about moderation, I'd be happy to address it further.
It's easy enough to see that we moderate comments that break the site guidelines whether they agree with any particular view or not (your side, the opposing side, or otherwise). There were several examples in this thread alone.
Yep you are absolutely right. People who spend money on things that doesn’t work but enables them to virtue signal is exactly what virtue signalling is. I gave you a real solution to the problem you can actually do (invite a homeless into your home/backyard) but you obviously don’t want to do it. Even though it would actually help a homeless person. Why not? Too smelly for you? Surely giving them access to a shower can fix that?
But it... does work? You know you don't have to personally completely solve a societal issue in order for your small individual contribution to the solution of that societal issue be worthwhile, right? Geez, this reminds me of how I used to think when I was a literal child. Just completely ignorant of the concept of universalization and collective action.
Yeah, if you want a system with private property then it needs men with guns who can kick peoples' doors down. And if you want that system to not be utterly horrible there's gonna be taxes that are enforced by men with guns kicking your doors down. I didn't introduce the men with guns here, that came with the private property. You can't have one without the other.
> some article obfuscating everything with relative instead of absolute numbers
