Re: Trump's latest lunacy

On 26/03/2025 7:18 am, Don Y wrote:

On 3/25/2025 12:03 PM, bitrex wrote:

So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be homeless anymore,

>
No.  There will *still* be homeless people, regardless of the level of
support that you provide.

>
Sure, there are no perfect solutions. So what.

>
*Expecting* it to be solvable by "mere handwaving" is naive.
Like the example I gave of the organization, here, that hands
*checks* to homeless youth.
>
All THAT does is enable them to engage in the same behaviors
that have kept them from "settling down" and overcoming their
current issues.

>
Treating adults like naughty grade school children and trying to modify their behaviors using the methods parents (sometimes with some success, at least at that stage of development) use to modify the behaviors of their naughty schoolchildren tends to be ineffective, what a lot of them needed was tough love at age 8 rather than the capricious and dysfunctional parents they actually got.

 That ignores the problem.  You have to understand the problem
before you can propose/develop a solution for it.  Otherwise,
you are just throwing money and effort at it and "hoping for the best"
 

But the state's usual fashion of tough love tends to get to most of these citizens far too late.

 The State doesn't have the patience to deal with these problems.
Why should the state have to fix the results of poor parenting,
poor environment, etc.?
 If it *should*, then THAT has to become a priority.  Otherwise,
The State does what is most expedient (which may not be best nor
cheapest -- politicians tend not to worry about details...)
 

My folks were more dysfunctional and capricious than many but not as bad as some and I had some other more positive influences, so I got a fighting chance. Other members of "the wrong crowd" I knew back in the day didn't get as fighting a chance and I visit their graves sometimes.
>

Many also suffer from mental illnesses.  Neither "problem" has quick,
easy cures.  Throwing staff and money at it isn't likely going to
achieve any positive results -- except for the exceptional cases
that manage to pull their shit together AND leave the lifestyle
that had *put* them in that situation.
>
Going back to "the same old crowd" (of friends) is likely going to put
them back where they started (on their failed trajectory).

>
Yes, the "exceptional cases" are indeed who you're working for, but I don't think they're quite as uncommon as you seem to be making them out to be.

 Everyone wants their donations (which are manifestations of working hours
out of their earlier lives) to be used effectively.  It's rare that someone
will willingly make a large donation (time or money) in the HOPE of some
positive result -- absent any real guarantees!

Dealing with other people's problems doesn't offer the option of guaranteed results. Everybody is different (even identical twins).

Part of the point of "throwing stuff and money" is because you have to show someone love and trust who's likely never experienced it _at all_ before you show them tough love or it just seems like more punishment, not a particularly effective method of enticing anyone back into society.

 We have a significant homelessness problem.  In part, because our
climate is more tolerant of living out-of-doors (I knew a guy who
lived in a TENT in his mom's back yard -- she forbid him in the
house; long story).  Part because we have a fair bit of "free"
services (e.g., one can ride public transportation "for free"
instead of relying on someone to transport you -- undoubtedly for
a "cut" of your take -- to your "panhandling intersection").
And, because the police tend to be a bit more tolerant than in
other locales.
 If someone sets up a tent on the "wild" side of our back fence,
should I just "feel sorry for him"?  Run over and give him some cash?
Invite him to dinner?  Will ANY of these things actually make a
difference -- or, just encourage others to come by for their share?

It might be wise to find out enough about him to get into a state where you can see what might work for him. Different individuals have different problems and different capabilities. They also pose different kinds of threats. Finding out a bit about them, as individuals, is a wise precaution, as well as the charitable approach.

These problems are larger than "individuals".  And, tend to require
more expertise than "well meaning groups" have available.

The problem is always the individual. Lumping people together and trying to apply a one-size-fits-all solution is a reliable route to disaster.
<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney