iNow

Is one not allowed to posit that specific thoughts or individual feelings might possibly be borderline bigoted without universally condemning the entire person thinking or feeling them as themselves a bigot?

There's another similar (and similarly huge population) of folks who are known as "gym membership" homeless, where basically they sleep in their cars then use the gym facilities for showers and a locker space before they head to their jobs. And we're still here waiting to hear what that charge might/should be from the thread author. Thus far, it was all police bracelets and no human hearings. Fair, and as Charon rightly called out the difference is one of choice. I'd be amenable to discussing "what are best practices and things to avoid when building government subsidized housing for the underhoused population," but that's a bit of a topic hijack since it's clearly not what the OP mentioned. Unless "government subsidized housing" means wintery tents and muddy piles of feces off by the edge of the parking lot. They have, but it was peripherally: Make homelessness illegal. Then the weapons of the state can be yielded against the poor wretches stinking up the sewers. I don't reckon this is terribly relevant in the end if the funding is from the government. It's surely better to explore lower cost more efficient options, but whether it's $2B or $20B per year can be covered more or less equally easily from the central purse.

Well, one might learn that expressions of kindness in our culture are not just infrequently rewarded, but are for various reasons often shunned by those in positions of authority. And just to ensure it doesn't again get missed: Where's the due process in all of this? (last question not to you, Peterkin)

Yep, and MTG called for Red states to become their own country despite how much more they rely on the federal government than blue states who provide far higher revenues. Why do we give these ignorant comments from these ignorant people any attention at all? This isn't a football match.

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone lashed out at wokeness. It's almost too predictable sometimes. https://www.naacpldf.org/woke-black-bad/

This actually touches on another issue with your proposal: Funding. If tax dollars or philanthropic donations are required to cover this, then the next most logical question is: Is there a better way to get higher ROI on those expenditures? In most cases, the answer there seems to be an unequivocal yes (at least if we look to what other countries like Finland have done). And also... nobody would be challenging you if this were simply voluntary. It's not though, and you keep evading the due process questions.

Cigarette smoking is something which harms others not engaging in it. It's a behavior with addictive and negative health outcomes for all involved. It can be extinguished (haha... see what I did there?) with effort and training. For the most part, that is not true of our sexuality (or the sexuality of OTHERS which is the actual topic here). Human sexuality, the ways we are attracted to others, and the manner in which those attractions express themselves are quite different. They're tied into our self-identity, our history, and so much more. But what's different? Well, for one: The sexual preferences of OTHERS has zero impact on you or others, unlike second hand smoke or increased costs to each of us as individuals for healthcare. I think that would be a good thing, yes. It would be better humanity as a whole if fewer people disliked "gay sex." It's really no different than white people disliking when a "colored boy" lays with a "white lady." Exact. Same. Structure. and exact same causes... a culture unaccepting of them. You keep conflating your personal sexual tastes (which nobody here is challenging) with your dislike of the tastes of others. Have we not made this repeatedly clear on the preceding 9 pages of discussion? This entire section is moot (including the bit where you immediately think of pedophilia as the next step after homosexuality... despite it having clear issues of consent and obvious problems with power dynamics). Me either, but nobody other than you is talking about this. Again, this is not and never has been the topic under discussion here. Unsure how much more plain this can be made. But you DO have an issue / problem with it. You have said so yourself. Repeatedly. Throughout this thread. It's the EXACT thing we've been discussing for 8 pages now: If I read you correctly, all of that repulsion and disgust is the same to you as "having no problem at all" with it? If so, you're using those terms in ways I've never previously encountered.

It happens quickly when there’s such a “final solution” vibe right from the start.

Edited misspellings before your submission ✌🏼

You’ve suggested (in response to my posts) that the US has abandoned due process in context of abortion. This was your way of trying to wave me off my question of where is due process in all of this internment camp for homeless addicts business. You may not be aware, but women even in the states you highlighted DO get charged with crimes for having abortions, they ARE afforded due process, and your point (beyond just risking an off topic tangent into highly charged and volatile subject matter) doesn’t in any way negate my valid question to Alex. If you’re not simply trolling me, then it’s hard making sense of why THIS is your line of attack, and why it’s been directed at me (a person who hasn’t affirmatively proposed anything in this thread). Perhaps we can abandon this line of exchange and move closer to the topic… perhaps my original question of “where is the due process in all this?” can help us more rapidly do so?

The overlap in this particular Venn diagram is significant, regardless of how hard or repeatedly you suggest we’re arguing slippery slopes. Want to fix homelessness? Offer homes. Want to address drug abuse? Great, use ideas that have been offered here and elsewhere. Forced imprisonment or forced relocation to distant camps away from civilization has precedent. Chinese Uighurs, Jews in ghettos, US Japanese citizens in WWII, Native American children being taken from parents for reeducation, European imperialists treatment of South Americans as savages, Putin throwing convicts at his illegal war of aggression to be used as cannon fodder… The list goes on and on. People without homes and with substance abuse issues deserve better than the dehumanizing paternalistic obtuse horseshit being proposed here. Where, indeed. But as that’s off topic here and also not a set of circumstances I’m here advocating it’s hard to see how this is anything more than a red herring.

And where in all of this is their due process offered? Where/how is it decided whether they “won’t be tolerated” versus them being exempt from the forced relocation you propose?

This is different from the forced insertion of those people into those facilities that was outlined in the OP. There was nothing “voluntary” about it, and this is true even if given the “choice” of this or imprisonment. Has your position now softened in the face of the universal condemnation it’s received?

You’re an Ayn Rand type of libertarian, aren’t you? That’s the whole vibe here.

Why are you ignoring that for five pages now there’s been total and universal opposition to your proposals which run counter to basic human rights, human dignity, and due process protections? The counter arguments have been made, as have deeply problematic historical comparisons, and this remains true even though you continue ignoring them.

Was it not obvious I was referring to YOUR treatment of the subject?

The OP is arguing more against caricatures than anything else and the proposed solution is similarly cartoonish.

The numinous

Taking larger concepts down to their barest essence, often at the cost of oversimplifying and losing utility.

More of a deist than a theist. “The universe” full of awe and wonder was to him a type of god, much like the one described by Spinoza. A simple word to describe the vastness and structure of it all, not a boring bearded cloud surfer who cares if I ate fish on Friday or had butt sex. God as poetry, not entity... basically.

It’s best just to assume that people can give as much as they want to any politician anywhere. They just need to funnel it correctly and jump through a few easy hoops to do it. The rest of it is just distractions.

On third thought!!… They should be conscripted and forcibly sent to the front lines and used to wipe out the maximum amount of Ukrainian soldiers as a Wave 1, then the “real” troops can follow as a Wave 2 on top of the homeless addicts piles of bodies. You’ll have to ask Alex for funding. It’s his idea. Just watch out. These rural camps in the mountains may not be entirely safe.

Was the feels like temp minus 45 in your neck of the woods?

On second thought, send them to Australia!! That’s the ticket! THEM. That word alone is part of the problem.

Alcatraz would likely be better. There, they have to swim!