getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Wormius

There are a lot of cold-hearted people in this thread.

Dude. You cant just lob softballs like that in such polarizing threads.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Wormius

There are a lot of cold-hearted people in this thread.

Well, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for serving as a shining example for all those people to follow, and for admonishing them in this manner so that they know who they should be looking to for guidance. I've no doubt that whoever those many cold-hearted people are - and it was no doubt due to your warm-hearted and kind nature that, admirably, you didn't name any of them - they'll be following you along the path of righteousness before long.

Spoiler!

I'm just kidding, I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just thought that was a funny thing for someone to post.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I feel like the focus on race is a negative because it takes away from the funniest part of the story: 6 large men were effectively threatened/disturbed by a little man with a Subway sandwich.

Jared really ruined Subway’s rep.

Then I think the problem is with the reader if they think the mention of race was a 'focus' or anything more than a descriptor in telling the story.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Then I think the problem is with the reader if they think the mention of race was a 'focus' or anything more than a descriptor in telling the story.

I meant of the conversation that followed.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Locke

Dude. You cant just lob softballs like that in such polarizing threads.

Sorry. What I meant to say was encampments should be moved to locations nearest the people who complain the most about it, because they live obviously very sheltered lives and need some exposure therapy to get over their anxiety issues over poor people.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Sorry. What I meant to say was encampments should be moved to locations nearest the people who complain the most about it, because they live obviously very sheltered lives and need some exposure therapy to get over their anxiety issues over poor people.

Wormius, this doesn't have anything to do with poor people.

This has everything to do with people openly using hard drugs, tweaking out, and harassing members of the public while simultaneously monopolizing (and vandalizing) public property to the detriment of others.

[White Out 403]

Some people want to appear so loving and caring that they're willing to watch our city turn into San Francisco so that they can feel good about themselves. I don't give a #### about hardcore drug addicts shooting up heroin and smoking crystal and their comfort. They can go to jail or they can go to treatment either way I don't want that #### on our streets. I don't care if that makes me sound like Ronald Reagan, #### criminals

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Sorry. What I meant to say was encampments should be moved to locations nearest the people who complain the most about it, because they live obviously very sheltered lives and need some exposure therapy to get over their anxiety issues over poor people.

Gimme a break. I grew up ridiculously poor and I've had exposure to poor people. The fact that I don't want to live next door to a camp were people live by a completely different set of rules and have entirely different lives as a result has nothing to do with my fear or dislike of poor people. It's the crime, virtual lawlessness, drug use and other factors that I don't want to be around.

And frankly, it's not being sheltered. I don't need exposure to that and neither does my family.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Slava

Gimme a break. I grew up ridiculously poor and I've had exposure to poor people. The fact that I don't want to live next door to a camp were people live by a completely different set of rules and have entirely different lives as a result has nothing to do with my fear or dislike of poor people. It's the crime, virtual lawlessness, drug use and other factors that I don't want to be around.

And frankly, it's not being sheltered. I don't need exposure to that and neither does my family.

Haha, I didn't even really pick up on the "obviously sheltered lives" bit. Not going to go too far into personal tales, but I have gone through the immediate-family-member-getting-into-hard-drugs BS and have lived a far-from-sheltered life. I'd actually posit if you haven't been the one running behind a loved one who is ####ing up their life and everyone's around them as you struggle to pick up the pieces, smooth over their messes and tried to help them from falling off a cliff it's actually you who has lived the sheltered life.

You can be tolerant and sympathetic to these people for so long, but honestly, once you see how ####ed up these drugs can make a person and change them into an untrustworthy write-off whose entire reason for existing is to get high regardless of the cost to anybody else, the last thing you'd want for them is more leeway to #### themselves harder.

In my case, death was merciful to my family member and for the entire family. Had there been safe injection sites and free reign to get high here there and everywhere, it would have prolonged the hardships.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Sorry. What I meant to say was encampments should be moved to locations nearest the people who complain the most about it, because they live obviously very sheltered lives and need some exposure therapy to get over their anxiety issues over poor people.

Why don't know put your money where your mouth is and allow a tent city on your own property?
Have your kids serve then meals and wife socialize with them each day.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Haha, I didn't even really pick up on the "obviously sheltered lives" bit. Not going to go too far into personal tales, but I have gone through the immediate-family-member-getting-into-hard-drugs BS and have lived a far-from-sheltered life. I'd actually posit if you haven't been the one running behind a loved one who is ####ing up their life and everyone's around them as you struggle to pick up the pieces, smooth over their messes and tried to help them from falling off a cliff it's actually you who has lived the sheltered life.

You can be tolerant and sympathetic to these people for so long, but honestly, once you see how ####ed up these drugs can make a person and change them into an untrustworthy write-off whose entire reason for existing is to get high regardless of the cost to anybody else, the last thing you'd want for them is more leeway to #### themselves harder.

In my case, death was merciful to my family member and for the entire family. Had there been safe injection sites and free reign to get high here there and everywhere, it would have prolonged the hardships.

Same and as much as drug addiction is a horrible issue for the addict, the absence of any control or normalcy extends to the destruction of families and by extension communities. To an extent, it is enabling these social ills to an extent. Anyone with a family member that got into hard drugs knows that it will likely tear apart the immediate family but also poses huge threat to the extended family too. This #### really shouldn’t be tolerated. It’s compassion, and if you won’t work with the help offered because your life is so out of control and the addiction has taken over, it’s forced help.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

Gimme a break. I grew up ridiculously poor and I've had exposure to poor people. The fact that I don't want to live next door to a camp were people live by a completely different set of rules and have entirely different lives as a result has nothing to do with my fear or dislike of poor people. It's the crime, virtual lawlessness, drug use and other factors that I don't want to be around.

And frankly, it's not being sheltered. I don't need exposure to that and neither does my family.

But you actively want others to be exposed to it. So who cares?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But you actively want others to be exposed to it. So who cares?

Does he want others exposed to it? I haven't made notes through the thread on the specifics of what Slava has said, but I honestly don't think it's that out of line to prioritize a guy like Slava's desire for people to follow the law and not ruin public property over the guy who just likes getting high and taking big steaming dumps in bus shelters.

My suspicion is Slava isn't advocating for people to be moved from around his neighbourhood in the South to, like, Dalhousie for those guys to deal with. I don't think any of us living law-abiding and contributive lives while treating public property with care deserve to sing Kumbaya with a bunch of tweakers. Get them the fata away from us, take away all their drugs and put them in an institution. They can come back out when they're clean.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Does he want others exposed to it?

Slava made the following post not long before Wormius made almost the exact same post a bit later, and Wormius’ post was the one people took exception too, including Slava (apparently not realizing Wormius was just repeating what he said).

Originally Posted by Slava

Maybe those folks should set that camp up next door to the judge. I have a feeling their opinion on their right to do this kind of thing would change radically.

Originally Posted by Wormius

Sorry. What I meant to say was encampments should be moved to locations nearest the people who complain the most about it, because they live obviously very sheltered lives and need some exposure therapy to get over their anxiety issues over poor people.

The only difference is the viewpoint of the people who each poster advocated the encampment being moved towards. I can respect to your opinion on this issue even if I disagree with a few significant aspects of it, but I’m sorry, it’s too funny that Slava got all “but my fwamiwy!” after Wormius proposed the exact same thing that he did, albeit him being the one affected instead of some person he doesn’t know.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Slava made the following post not long before Wormius made almost the exact same post a bit later, and Wormius’ post was the one people took exception too, including Slava (apparently not realizing Wormius was just repeating what he said).





The only difference is the viewpoint of the people who each poster advocated the encampment being moved towards. I can respect to your opinion on this issue even if I disagree with a few significant aspects of it, but I’m sorry, it’s too funny that Slava got all “but my fwamiwy!” after Wormius proposed the exact same thing that he did, albeit him being the one affected instead of some person he doesn’t know.

They're basically suggesting opposite things.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Slava made the following post not long before Wormius made almost the exact same post a bit later, and Wormius’ post was the one people took exception too, including Slava (apparently not realizing Wormius was just repeating what he said).





The only difference is the viewpoint of the people who each poster advocated the encampment being moved towards. I can respect to your opinion on this issue even if I disagree with a few significant aspects of it, but I’m sorry, it’s too funny that Slava got all “but my fwamiwy!” after Wormius proposed the exact same thing that he did, albeit him being the one affected instead of some person he doesn’t know.

It's a bizarre take to get that from Slava's post.

It was clear that he was pointing out that it's very unlikely that the Judge would have came to the same decision if it was likely that the homeless encampment was, or would be, set up next to the judge's property.

Bizarre.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

They're basically suggesting opposite things.

Move encampment near complainers about encampments
Move encampment near people that think it’s their right to make an encampment

The only difference is the people it’s moving closer to. And I’m not advocating either, I have to drive through two and often walk through (or usually around) pretty significant ones whenever I go back to the Bay Area. I’m not without sympathy, it sucks for everyone.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by you&me

It's a bizarre take to get that from Slava's post.

It was clear that he was pointing out that it's very unlikely that the Judge would have came to the same decision if it was likely that the homeless encampment was, or would be, set up next to the judge's property.

Bizarre.

That’s what Wormius is saying as well, but about people who complain, not about judges.

You can disagree with that. Nobody cares.

[Wormius]

Well, my take from Slava’s original post was that the judge was wrong for allowing the encampment to stay; meaning the police should be allowed to raze it and then homeless can just fend for themselves in the middle of winter with inadequate access to shelters.

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by nik-

They're basically suggesting opposite things.

Exact same... but completely different.