We've had a certain amount of discussion of the surge in materials challenges at libraries around parts of the country in recent months. But libraries have a lot of other things to worry about, and in many places these other concerns are a good deal more pressing. Concerns such as libraries being turned into de facto homeless, mental health, and drug services; violence and other disruptive behavior, stemming from the above; budget problems; etc.
A recent article deals with some of these issues:
QuoteFrom late 2020 to early 2021, University of Toronto information science professor Siobhan Stevenson conducted a survey of front-line library workers in four public systems in Canada, asking them about their experiences of violence and incivility.
The results painted a picture of a predominantly female profession that could be difficult, traumatic, and sometimes dangerous. About two-thirds of respondents reported feeling unsafe, from a few times a month to a few times a week. As many as 84 percent had been victims of verbal intimidation, while 75 percent had experienced an unwelcome invasion of personal space or physical intimidation. Four percent said they had been the subject of an attempted rape.
"I have been threatened with violence on a number of occasions, knifed and punched in the face," one respondent reported. "Verbal threats of rape, at least once a month," said another. "As time passes, I have felt more unsafe in my workplace—which surprises me," said a third. "I love my job but it has changed dramatically over the last few years for the worse."
https://thewalrus.ca/future-of-libraries/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
It's worth noting that the article deals with the situation with libraries in Canada. For all that many Americans seem to see Canada as an outpost of enlightened Scandinavia, our neighbors to the north seem to be dealing with problems that seem all too familiar to people in the U.S.
Which is not to say that in parts of the U.S. these problems aren't often still more extreme. Recent news stories have noted that the San Diego Public Library's main downtown facility, for example, has in the past five years had to call the police for:
253 incidents of disturbing the peace
87 mental health emergencies
68 violent disturbances
63 drug overdoses
52 concealed weapons
51 cases of battery
27 cases of theft
25 assaults with a deadly weapon
21 cases of armed threatening
18 reported deaths, including a recent murder and two known suicides; the rest are presumably fatal overdoses
It's not a great time to be a librarian in North America.
Our university library has slowly evolved into an 18-hours-a-day shelter for homeless, those with mental problems, and others who need a safe place to hang out. At first it wasn't a big deal, but there has been a big increase in the homeless population that hangs out in our library. It has gotten to the point where we no longer allow anyone to take a nap in the library.
I'm thinking to myself that our community's social safety net (both public and private) are no longer enough.
Quote from: lightning on June 14, 2023, 02:35:36 PMOur university library has slowly evolved into an 18-hours-a-day shelter for homeless, those with mental problems, and others who need a safe place to hang out. At first it wasn't a big deal, but there has been a big increase in the homeless population that hangs out in our library. It has gotten to the point where we no longer allow anyone to take a nap in the library.
I'm thinking to myself that our community's social safety net (both public and private) are no longer enough.
[plural added]They were not enough in the 1970s before the Reagan administration defunded mental hospitals. They were not enough when the Iraq war veterans came home with PTSD. They were not enough when homelessness became a chronic problem throughout our country. They were not enough when both mass and social media began blurring the distinctions still further between reality/facts/what actually happens/ed and fiction/conspiracy theories/wishful thinking.
SMDH
This article from "The Walrus" is making the rounds online this week! I saw it as a getpocket.com recommendation.
I like the name of the magazine! :D
Quote from: paultuttle on June 15, 2023, 02:48:03 PMQuote from: lightning on June 14, 2023, 02:35:36 PMOur university library has slowly evolved into an 18-hours-a-day shelter for homeless, those with mental problems, and others who need a safe place to hang out. At first it wasn't a big deal, but there has been a big increase in the homeless population that hangs out in our library. It has gotten to the point where we no longer allow anyone to take a nap in the library.
I'm thinking to myself that our community's social safety net (both public and private) are no longer enough.
[plural added]
They were not enough in the 1970s before the Reagan administration defunded mental hospitals. They were not enough when the Iraq war veterans came home with PTSD. They were not enough when homelessness became a chronic problem throughout our country. They were not enough when both mass and social media began blurring the distinctions still further between reality/facts/what actually happens/ed and fiction/conspiracy theories/wishful thinking.
SMDH
All true, but librarians back then were not librarians-trying-to-be-social-workers. They were librarians being librarians.
Obviously we need to get back into the mental hospital biz, but that said, a uni lib is not the proper place for mentally ill people, druggies, etc., to hang out. They are not tuition payers, and were I the father of a student, with me paying big bucks to send him there, I would not want him to not be able to safely and comfortably access said libes, without having to deal with said mental patients, junkies, etc. Private schools have absolutely no obligation to allow such people in their libraries, and even though state unis may have some such obligations, no properly understood obligation requires the library to tolerate the continued presence of scumbags who, well, act like scumbags. Out the door, one strike you are out, and if you return, hi ho, hi ho, it's off to jail you go.
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 15, 2023, 09:41:50 PMObviously we need to get back into the mental hospital biz, but that said, a uni lib is not the proper place for mentally ill people, druggies, etc., to hang out. They are not tuition payers, and were I the father of a student, with me paying big bucks to send him there, I would not want him to not be able to safely and comfortably access said libes, without having to deal with said mental patients, junkies, etc. Private schools have absolutely no obligation to allow such people in their libraries, and even though state unis may have some such obligations, no properly understood obligation requires the library to tolerate the continued presence of scumbags who, well, act like scumbags. Out the door, one strike you are out, and if you return, hi ho, hi ho, it's off to jail you go.
Being mentally ill shouldn't mean you can't use the library, nor should being a drug user. I think there's a moral obligation to not shut people out because of beliefs about them based on their appearance or affect. Obviously, there are behaviors that can't be allowed in a library, but it's important to not confuse behaviors and people.
Quote from: Caracal on June 16, 2023, 04:50:31 PMQuote from: kaysixteen on June 15, 2023, 09:41:50 PMObviously we need to get back into the mental hospital biz, but that said, a uni lib is not the proper place for mentally ill people, druggies, etc., to hang out. They are not tuition payers, and were I the father of a student, with me paying big bucks to send him there, I would not want him to not be able to safely and comfortably access said libes, without having to deal with said mental patients, junkies, etc. Private schools have absolutely no obligation to allow such people in their libraries, and even though state unis may have some such obligations, no properly understood obligation requires the library to tolerate the continued presence of scumbags who, well, act like scumbags. Out the door, one strike you are out, and if you return, hi ho, hi ho, it's off to jail you go.
Being mentally ill shouldn't mean you can't use the library, nor should being a drug user. I think there's a moral obligation to not shut people out because of beliefs about them based on their appearance or affect. Obviously, there are behaviors that can't be allowed in a library, but it's important to not confuse behaviors and people.
Our librarians (OK, the library's un-armed security staff under direction of the librarians) will not kick anyone out due to mental illness. But, anyone who is disruptive or poses a safety risk will be escorted out. That applies to students, faculty, and staff, also.
No one is arguing that a person who is mentally ill should be defenestrated from the library merely for being ill-- in any case, how would the librarian know this? But *acting like scumbags* as I said, out the door you go. It really shouldn't have been very hard to read my piece and glean my meaning.
And I did also mention something else that may be difficult for some people to accept, however true it actually is. Namely that private universities are, ahem, private places, and junkies off the street are not members of the campus community and have no actual rights to be in those libraries, and their presence is, ahem, detrimental to the well-being and academic uses of those who do. Walmart may have to acccept scumbag junkies walking in off the street, but libraries at private universities, heck even local pub libraries, really, do not.
Scumbag junkies....Spoken like the true Christian you profess to be.
Problems at some of the branches of our city libraries include unsupervised children using the library as a playground, loud music, sleeping individuals sprawled out on seats meant for readers/users of the library, individuals watching porn on the library computers, and most recently an individual with a dog getting onto a very small elevator. When I told the attendant I would wait for the next elevator, he responded, "I don't blame you." I once encountered a female librarian, being rudely dismissed by a disruptive individual.
Being an actual Christian, I favor *not leaving* said scumbag junkies to remain as, well, scumbag junkies, but rather forcing them to stop being such, and providing the resources, rehab, etc., to help that process along. Meanwhile, they do not get to ruin everyone else's experience of the library, etc.
It is much easier to critique attitudes I have expressed when/if one does not actually live somewhere where one gets to encounter people like this on a regular basis. Where I live, and having to park on the street, I regularly encounter these sorts just between my house and my car, esp at night. Just going into the local pub library often requires one to run a gauntlet away from such folks. Most people from Leafy Suburb can look the other way, but we cannot. Leafy Suburbanites get to rest easy knowing that people like this in their own communities more or less get forced, or at least incentivized, to come to places like Rusty City-- their own libraries more or less get to be Junkie-free. Drugs Suck.
Wow.
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 17, 2023, 08:10:51 AMBeing an actual Christian, I favor *not leaving* said scumbag junkies to remain as, well, scumbag junkies, but rather forcing them to stop being such, and providing the resources, rehab, etc., to help that process along. Meanwhile, they do not get to ruin everyone else's experience of the library, etc.
It is much easier to critique attitudes I have expressed when/if one does not actually live somewhere where one gets to encounter people like this on a regular basis. Where I live, and having to park on the street, I regularly encounter these sorts just between my house and my car, esp at night. Just going into the local pub library often requires one to run a gauntlet away from such folks. Most people from Leafy Suburb can look the other way, but we cannot. Leafy Suburbanites get to rest easy knowing that people like this in their own communities more or less get forced, or at least incentivized, to come to places like Rusty City-- their own libraries more or less get to be Junkie-free. Drugs Suck.
You really are bring foolish. Most of us interact with "such folks" daily. There is no library in a city of any size that does not have "such folks". In my town in Colorado "such folks" are on every street corner, and the local library as well as the one in Boulder and another CO town nearby have had to close due to meth contamination in the restroom. I interact and talk to them every morning at my rec center where they come to shower, and at McDonald's at breakfast after.
And you are nowhere near what you claim you are.
I suppose I should not take the bait, but what the heck: what should a proper Christian attitude towards narcotics addiction and narcotics addicts be, and on what biblical basis does this proper attitude rest?
At our local Big Box Retail Emporium, the attitude of mgmt seems to be more or less hands-off in terms of doing anything about junkies and gangbangers, so long as they do not actually show weapons, steal, or fight. I have had customers complain about being harassed by junkies in the parking lot, aggressively looking for donations, and I just yesterday had a guy complain about a junkie shooting up in the men's room. I told mgmt, and he went into the room and asked the guy if he was alright-- he had not od'd and was not unconscious. He said he was fine, so mgmt left. What if the next person to enter said lavatory was an 8yo? And no, not all pub libraries deal with this problem, though it is increasing. Honest, law-abiding citizens have rights too, and their rights to free, safe, and comfortable access into and use of a pub library simply *absolutely trump* the 'rights' of junkies to hang out there and act aggressively.
I confess, my understanding of Christian ethics is hands-on, Puritanical, and favors coercion. I have no truck with the notion that Jesus wants us to allow junkies to remain junkies, esp if they have children. And I think it appalling and just plain contrary to Christ's teachings, to allow the mentally ill to remain homeless on the streets, wallowing in their own delusions. Who the hell thinks that is ok, save addle-brained liberals who complain that forced institionalization of such individuals somehow violates their 'rights', or their 'agency', or cynical, essentially evil, libertarians who do not want to pay taxes and do not care about their fellow man. I agree with Oliver Wendell Holmes, when he teaches that he likes paying taxes, because in so doing he is 'buying civilization'. We need to acknowledge that fixing these problems will indeed require us to be willing to pony up real tax moneys to do so, and then, well, do it.
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 17, 2023, 08:00:21 PMWe need to acknowledge that fixing these problems will indeed require us to be willing to pony up real tax moneys to do so, and then, well, do it.
I agree. I disagree with dehumanizing those in desperate need of help by calling them "scumbag junkies." Jesus didn't dehumanize those in need.
Kay, I typed that while tending to an ill spouse. If you've remembered my previous posts, you know that I (and almost everyone I see post, maybe all) believe the homeless, addicts, and mentally ill deserve our support. That includes housing, treatment, help transitioning when possible to being self-supporting. FWIW my sister was a head librarian in two different types os cities for years, and has gone on to study ways to help homeless people gather information to do so. She regularly works at support centers, and hasn't had what many here would call a traditional Thanksgiving for 30+ years as she spends the day at a soup kitchen. I admire her.
My intense reaction was to your characterization of scumbag drug users. That is what you see. I see one of us with addiction. I see the women my church supports who have lost everything. I see the folks at McDonald's who are preparing to sit and beg on the corners with those ubiquitous card board signs. They pool resources, and pay for cheap food. And yes, some pay for for cheap wine and drugs. One is at breakfast almost every day. Most days he is quiet and keeps to himself. Some days he sleeps until the staff or a friend rouse him and ask him to leave. Some days he talks animatedly to the non-existent entity he sits beside. Twice he's been so agitated the police were called.
The population I see every day skews old, and the young among are aging fast.They cannot be employed, because they are ill, hurt, old. I don't see scumbags; I see us.
Your last paragraph was to me (except for one sentence) what I see as a proper Christian attitude. The sentence is of course your core, and I'll admit to distaste for that attitude:
"I confess, my understanding of Christian ethics is hands-on, Puritanical, and favors coercion."
I suspect if Jonathon Edwards were alive you'd be in one of the pews; I'd be trying to get as far away as possible.
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 17, 2023, 07:45:44 PMI suppose I should not take the bait, but what the heck: what should a proper Christian attitude towards narcotics addiction and narcotics addicts be, and on what biblical basis does this proper attitude rest?
How about Matthew 7:12: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets," for starters, followed with an application of John 13:34-35: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
I'm not a Christian and don't claim to be, but how about trying just being decent to others? I was raised in the church and have focused a good deal of my scholarship on American religious tradition, so I have a pretty extensive working knowledge of the gospels; I don't recall reading anywhere that says true Christianity is grounded in coercion.
But what do I know? I don't live among the junkies and scumbags out here in the sticks--that is, if you don't count the half dozen opioid and meth obituaries in the local paper every week, the multiple outreach programs run in our town of ~7,000 people, and the literal dozens of people living in their cars or in tents (or less) on the streets/country side roads or in the woods and remote farm fields in this area.
Our oldest child has TBI, bipolar II, and a medical weed card. There are plenty of days when they're in crisis and would likely present as one of your despised "scumbag junkies." ALHS and I have driven ourselves into financial and emotional bankruptcy trying to help them and to keep a roof over their head for over a decade,
not to avoid inconveniencing you, but for their own protection
from those like you who might be inconvenienced and/or outraged by their existence.
So, yes, the blithe assertion of "
forcing them to stop being" "scumbag junkies" drew a "wow" from me. It must be affirming to have the luxury of pontificating from atop a high-horse. Every single one of those people you
hate would
force to change (like that's even possible!) has a story. I pity anyone who can't be bothered to acknowledge that. These people (including our family) don't want your approval or your pity. We just deserve the dignity to be treated as human beings who haven't received that "grace of God" which allows some people the satisfaction of looking down on us. If there are only two options--being where my family finds ourselves today, or taking your attitude--I'll stick with ours, thanks.
TL; DR version: read your Bible and do what your Jesus did and told you to do.
My little brother started using heroin when he was 13. He got clean when he was 20, and has been sober for a few years now. He is (and was) a kind, loving, and very bright guy, but a combination of mental health issues and bullying pushed him into a crowd of kids with serious problems, and he fell into some of them. He was sometimes violent and always unpredictable while addicted, and he loathed himself for it. My father and stepmother were desperate to help, but also recognized that they couldn't force help on him, especially without driving him away. And having him end up on the street would have been very much worse--probably a death sentence. So they made sure he had a home, did what they could, and didn't ask questions when he asked for money. It was incredibly difficult for them, but I think it was the right decision. My brother would certainly tell you so.
One of my younger stepbrothers is an alcoholic. He's skated in and out of treatment since his mid twenties, and has been sober for a few years now. He spent some time on the street. His father coerced him into treatment several times, but it didn't take. His twin brother has helped, time and again, by sharing an apartment or getting him hired at his own workplaces. In his case, he was dealing with severe depression. Not coincidentally, he was finally able to stay sober once he was able to see his daughter again, after twelve years. You can take a wild guess about when the drinking started.
One of our forum regulars was once addicted to drugs, too. They've not been shy speaking up about the experience.
These are people. They may look bad from the outside, and their behaviour may even impinge on others sometimes. But they matter to someone--save for those who are where they are precisely because nobody has cared for them. You get to see them on their worst days because they have no closed doors to hide behind.
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 17, 2023, 08:10:51 AMBeing an actual Christian, I favor *not leaving* said scumbag junkies to remain as, well, scumbag junkies, but rather forcing them to stop being such, and providing the resources, rehab, etc., to help that process along. Meanwhile, they do not get to ruin everyone else's experience of the library, etc.
It is much easier to critique attitudes I have expressed when/if one does not actually live somewhere where one gets to encounter people like this on a regular basis. Where I live, and having to park on the street, I regularly encounter these sorts just between my house and my car, esp at night. Just going into the local pub library often requires one to run a gauntlet away from such folks. Most people from Leafy Suburb can look the other way, but we cannot. Leafy Suburbanites get to rest easy knowing that people like this in their own communities more or less get forced, or at least incentivized, to come to places like Rusty City-- their own libraries more or less get to be Junkie-free. Drugs Suck.
Where I live now is quite sanitized, which isn't really my preference, but I went to grad school in a place where there were plenty of unhoused people hanging around. For the most part, these people were polite and non-threatening. Even the one guy who would sometimes loudly yell at nobody was clearly not dangerous since I saw him do that for 5 years without anything else ever happening. I worried far more about groups of teenagers mugging me than these guys. They mostly hung out at the same places all the time and they were clearly pretty careful to not block entrances or cause any issues for the storekeepers, many of whom regularly gave them food. Probably some of them did have issues with substance abuse, as do plenty of people who aren't homeless, but it wasn't obvious.
Look, libraries are public places-actually even some private libraries that house government documents collections are required to be open to the public. They should be staffed appropriately, depending on their location. That means appropriate security so that librarians and patrons can feel safe
Quote from: Caracal on June 18, 2023, 01:59:19 PMLook, libraries are public places-actually even some private libraries that house government documents collections are required to be open to the public. They should be staffed appropriately, depending on their location. That means appropriate security so that librarians and patrons can feel safe
This is like saying that schools are public spaces, and should have adequate security, including guards, metal detectors at the doors, resources for live-shooter drills, etc.
Accepting this as "normal" just means the people who can afford to go elsewhere will, (not using the libraries or putting their kids in private school, for instance), so that the only people who have to deal with this are the people in the community who are poor enough to have no option. (So, members of already marginalized communities, recent immigrants, etc.)
As people abandon these spaces, funding for them will decrease, and the more voters have already left, the less they'll care about pleas for more funding. It's a downward spiral.
It's an example of the broken windows theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#:~:text=In%20criminology%2C%20the%20broken%20windows,and%20disorder%2C%20including%20serious%20crimes.).
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2023, 05:22:59 AMQuote from: Caracal on June 18, 2023, 01:59:19 PMLook, libraries are public places-actually even some private libraries that house government documents collections are required to be open to the public. They should be staffed appropriately, depending on their location. That means appropriate security so that librarians and patrons can feel safe
This is like saying that schools are public spaces, and should have adequate security, including guards, metal detectors at the doors, resources for live-shooter drills, etc.
Accepting this as "normal" just means the people who can afford to go elsewhere will, (not using the libraries or putting their kids in private school, for instance), so that the only people who have to deal with this are the people in the community who are poor enough to have no option. (So, members of already marginalized communities, recent immigrants, etc.)
As people abandon these spaces, funding for them will decrease, and the more voters have already left, the less they'll care about pleas for more funding. It's a downward spiral.
It's an example of the broken windows theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#:~:text=In%20criminology%2C%20the%20broken%20windows,and%20disorder%2C%20including%20serious%20crimes.).
This might be why more homeless are showing up at my university's library.
Funding for my community's local public libraries has gone down, probably because no one wants to fund them anymore, and that has resulted in less hours that the public libraries are open and multiple days in the week that various public library branches are closed. OTOH, our main academic library is open 7 days a week from very early in the day to very late at night. So, I'm guessing that the homeless patrons who used to hang out at the public libraries, now hang out at our library because we have much better hours. I'm guessing that when we re-located our food bank to right next to the library, that probably drove up traffic. Finally, we sometimes have these events for students, featuring free food. There are people that attend who are obviously not students.
Yeah, the word has gotten out. So far, everyone is co-existing just fine. At least, I have not heard of any problems . . . .
You can have all the homelessness you are willing to pay for.
Random thoughts:
1) One might disagree with my choice of the term 'scumbag' here, but let's not be holier than God--Jesus called bad people 'ye brood of vipers'.
2) Those two passages, from John and Matthew, probably demonstrate my point. As to John, were I a junkie shooting up in the Wallyworld bathroom, I would want someone to prevent me from doing that, and force me to take treatment for my condition. As to Matthew, further, how do I properly show love to the addict, by a) telling him, 'you're ok, bro, I love you', or b) doing what I said above wrt John?
3) I do have to confess that my time in Rusty City, esp working for Big Box America, has made me rather hard, greatly magnifying my preexisting views of addicts and addiction (son of wife-beater alcoholic). I do not like this, but I need the job, so I will have to tough it out, and pray (as I do) for better attitudes. That does not mean I am wrong about addiction and addicts' behavior, however...
Quote from: lightning on June 19, 2023, 08:15:00 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on June 19, 2023, 05:22:59 AMQuote from: Caracal on June 18, 2023, 01:59:19 PMLook, libraries are public places-actually even some private libraries that house government documents collections are required to be open to the public. They should be staffed appropriately, depending on their location. That means appropriate security so that librarians and patrons can feel safe
This is like saying that schools are public spaces, and should have adequate security, including guards, metal detectors at the doors, resources for live-shooter drills, etc.
Accepting this as "normal" just means the people who can afford to go elsewhere will, (not using the libraries or putting their kids in private school, for instance), so that the only people who have to deal with this are the people in the community who are poor enough to have no option. (So, members of already marginalized communities, recent immigrants, etc.)
As people abandon these spaces, funding for them will decrease, and the more voters have already left, the less they'll care about pleas for more funding. It's a downward spiral.
It's an example of the broken windows theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#:~:text=In%20criminology%2C%20the%20broken%20windows,and%20disorder%2C%20including%20serious%20crimes.).
This might be why more homeless are showing up at my university's library.
Funding for my community's local public libraries has gone down, probably because no one wants to fund them anymore, and that has resulted in less hours that the public libraries are open and multiple days in the week that various public library branches are closed. OTOH, our main academic library is open 7 days a week from very early in the day to very late at night. So, I'm guessing that the homeless patrons who used to hang out at the public libraries, now hang out at our library because we have much better hours. I'm guessing that when we re-located our food bank to right next to the library, that probably drove up traffic. Finally, we sometimes have these events for students, featuring free food. There are people that attend who are obviously not students.
Yeah, the word has gotten out. So far, everyone is co-existing just fine. At least, I have not heard of any problems . . . .
You won't hear anything from all of the people who just stop using the space. Most people aren't going to scream and wave placards. They'll just go away.
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 19, 2023, 09:00:47 PMwere I a junkie shooting up in the Wallyworld bathroom, I would want someone to prevent me from doing that, and force me to take treatment for my condition.
So you are adept at wrenching a needle from the arm of the addict in the bathroom and bundling her off to the nearest rehab center?
Don't be stupid, and don't insult my intelligence. Cops and paramedics can be called to do that, and then after the junkie is stabilized, giving the junkie a choice between rehab or the slammer is easy enough.
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 20, 2023, 10:05:17 AMDon't be stupid, and don't insult my intelligence. Cops and paramedics can be called to do that, and then after the junkie is stabilized, giving the junkie a choice between rehab or the slammer is easy enough.
Got it. So you're not actually taking part in helping these people, just judging them and wanting to not see their problems.
Gonna agree with the consensus that this doesn't sound very Christian, or at least not any variety I would want to associate with Christ.
Problem is, you have not dealt with the obvious reality that it is *not in accordance with the teaching of Jesus, the clear teaching of the Bible* to sit around and allow junkies to shoot up and do nothing. Maybe your 'Jesus' thinks this is a good idea, but the Jesus of the Bible simply does not.
Quite frankly, I am tiring of arsewipe unbelievers attempting to tell Christians what Christianity ought to teach, and in so doing demonstrating vast ignorance of the Bible (and in this case astounding dumb-dumbery, suggesting that junkies should be allowed to continue in their junkiehood.). Note the clear refutation of the silly 'love them' interpretation of the John and Matthew passages cited above, that I offered-- it is simply not loving the junkie to allow him to continue to shoot up in the Wallyworld bathroom. No reasonable definition of 'loving' could say differently.
In Chicago, Walmart has closed several stores because of shoplifting and theft. The people most disadvantaged by this are the law-abiding people in those communities who now have less access to things including groceries. The choice to allow un- or anti-social behaviour, (like shooting up in bathrooms which may put children at risk), is a choice to favour the choices of out-of-control individuals over the freedom of law-abiding people.
As Thomas Sowell says, "There are no solutions; only trade-offs." This is trading off the use of these institutions by people who want to use them as they were intended to be used for the convenience of people who will use them for things that were never intended, and may even be counter-productive. (If libraries are supposed to be safe for children, used needles in the bathrooms are counter-productive.)
Of course I agree completely, Marsh.
I would add that lack of law enforcement will drive private businesses to quit or go bankrupt, leaving food deserts, but that government operations, like libraries, will ask for, and in part receive, more funding for more services!
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 20, 2023, 11:48:20 AMProblem is, you have not dealt with the obvious reality that it is *not in accordance with the teaching of Jesus, the clear teaching of the Bible* to sit around and allow junkies to shoot up and do nothing. Maybe your 'Jesus' thinks this is a good idea, but the Jesus of the Bible simply does not.
Quite frankly, I am tiring of arsewipe unbelievers attempting to tell Christians what Christianity ought to teach, and in so doing demonstrating vast ignorance of the Bible (and in this case astounding dumb-dumbery, suggesting that junkies should be allowed to continue in their junkiehood.). Note the clear refutation of the silly 'love them' interpretation of the John and Matthew passages cited above, that I offered-- it is simply not loving the junkie to allow him to continue to shoot up in the Wallyworld bathroom. No reasonable definition of 'loving' could say differently.
And I am equally tired of asshole believers listening to other BELIEVERS who disagree with them and calling them unbelievers. You are one, and frankly, if your posts about your life resemble the truth you are a hair's breadth from being homeless and broke yourself.
OF COURSE WE DON'T WANT TO LET THEM JUST SHOOT UP. OF COURSE WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE HOMELESS, SO CAN IT PLEASE.
You offer no solutions yourself, you merely moan and condemn.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on June 20, 2023, 02:46:31 PMOF COURSE WE DON'T WANT TO LET THEM JUST SHOOT UP. OF COURSE WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE HOMELESS, SO CAN IT PLEASE.
While I think Kay may be rather "abrupt" in his language, I share his frustration with the implication that
not dealing with egregious behaviour by drug users and homeless people
has no cost to the community so they should just be left alone. There are real long term costs that harm mostly the poorest members of the community who can't escape. (This of course
includes the drug dealers and homeless people because when the neighborhood becomes a post-apocalyptic nightmare, it affects them as well.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 20, 2023, 04:14:53 PMQuote from: jimbogumbo on June 20, 2023, 02:46:31 PMOF COURSE WE DON'T WANT TO LET THEM JUST SHOOT UP. OF COURSE WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE HOMELESS, SO CAN IT PLEASE.
While I think Kay may be rather "abrupt" in his language, I share his frustration with the implication that not dealing with egregious behaviour by drug users and homeless people has no cost to the community so they should just be left alone. There are real long term costs that harm mostly the poorest members of the community who can't escape. (This of course includes the drug dealers and homeless people because when the neighborhood becomes a post-apocalyptic nightmare, it affects them as well.)
The whole community is harmed when egregious behavior continues. Society loses their intellectual, creative and economic contributions. Their families and friends lose their emotional connection and support.
Quote from: marshwiggle on June 20, 2023, 04:14:53 PMQuote from: jimbogumbo on June 20, 2023, 02:46:31 PMOF COURSE WE DON'T WANT TO LET THEM JUST SHOOT UP. OF COURSE WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE HOMELESS, SO CAN IT PLEASE.
While I think Kay may be rather "abrupt" in his language, I share his frustration with the implication that not dealing with egregious behaviour by drug users and homeless people has no cost to the community so they should just be left alone. There are real long term costs that harm mostly the poorest members of the community who can't escape. (This of course includes the drug dealers and homeless people because when the neighborhood becomes a post-apocalyptic nightmare, it affects them as well.)
Literally no one on this board has suggested they should be just left alone, nor that there are are no costs. No one.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on June 20, 2023, 02:46:31 PMQuote from: kaysixteen on June 20, 2023, 11:48:20 AMProblem is, you have not dealt with the obvious reality that it is *not in accordance with the teaching of Jesus, the clear teaching of the Bible* to sit around and allow junkies to shoot up and do nothing. Maybe your 'Jesus' thinks this is a good idea, but the Jesus of the Bible simply does not.
Quite frankly, I am tiring of arsewipe unbelievers attempting to tell Christians what Christianity ought to teach, and in so doing demonstrating vast ignorance of the Bible (and in this case astounding dumb-dumbery, suggesting that junkies should be allowed to continue in their junkiehood.). Note the clear refutation of the silly 'love them' interpretation of the John and Matthew passages cited above, that I offered-- it is simply not loving the junkie to allow him to continue to shoot up in the Wallyworld bathroom. No reasonable definition of 'loving' could say differently.
And I am equally tired of asshole believers listening to other BELIEVERS who disagree with them and calling them unbelievers. You are one, and frankly, if your posts about your life resemble the truth you are a hair's breadth from being homeless and broke yourself.
OF COURSE WE DON'T WANT TO LET THEM JUST SHOOT UP. OF COURSE WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE HOMELESS, SO CAN IT PLEASE.
You offer no solutions yourself, you merely moan and condemn.
It's the same Christian Conservatives who, after de-institutionalization in the 1970's, voted in Reagan who cut all the Federally-funded community based services for people with mental health and substance abuse issues, so they became homeless.
After that, they scream at the cities who can't provide enough beds for shelters and effective treatment, saying it's all the Liberal Sanctuary Cities fault for "allowing" this. Because really it's about low-income people who can't afford private health insurance and treatment, so they end up on the street.
And because public health insurance and housing support and food support are all for lazy Welfare Queens, well, the solution is for everyone to... I don't know what?
Good thing Brett Favre and other worthy Americans (https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/05/18/brett-favre-mississippi-welfare-scandal-key-takeaways) are seeing to it that what funds are available are being used for important community projects with long-term results.
Quote from: ciao_yall on June 20, 2023, 04:40:34 PMIt's the same Christian Conservatives who, after de-institutionalization in the 1970's, voted in Reagan who cut all the Federally-funded community based services for people with mental health and substance abuse issues, so they became homeless.
In Canada, it was more the
liberals who wanted to get people out of institutions which resulted in homelessness for many because the people with mental health problems and so on can't really function independently, and coming up with appropriate supports is
really hard.
So, on libraries we get from books to the homeless. Only a government operation can even consider this.
There's a good book
Homelessness Is a Housing Problem: How Structural Factors Explain U.S. Patterns, Gregg Colburn and Clayton Page Aldern, U California Press 2022.
In public discussion homelessness is usually associated with addiction and mental illness and further personal problems. The authors do something very clever -- they examine the regional variation of homelessness, for in each region the personal causes will tend to have the same frequency.
Guess what? Homelessness is caused by lack of homes, which leads to high rents, which leads to every personal problem causing homelessness. It is highly concentrated by State -- New York, California, and only a few others.
Those high prices are caused by homeowners acting politically as NIMBY's. As usual, the problem is us.
'Abrupt' is probably about right. This is an issue that strikes a big tuning fork with me-- to a large extent it did before I started to work for Big Box America in Rusty City, but my experiences here have ramped that up by several orders of magnitude. I did spend time this afternoon considering what I had written earlier today, and wondered if I was overly harsh. Maybe I was-- but my points were exactly correct nonetheless. The poster who cited John and Matthew, very poorly exegeted, acknowledges not being a Christian, and most people here would probably acknowledge the same. And some of attempts to critique my views border on the absurd. I have advocated putting society back into the mental hospital biz, and raising taxes to do so, and pointed out the stupid coalition 50 years or so ago that caused us to shut most of our mental institutions down, where evil tax-hating conservatives snookered 60s liberals into thinking that the mentally ill could and would be better served by non-institutional alternatives (most of which the conservatives never even agreed to fund). We can and must correct this flaw.
That said, opioid problems, esp in people who otherwise are not seriously mentally ill, are a different problem, and demand a harder approach, one backed up with serious state funding to provide the solid, evidence-based treatment options these people need... and must be forced, on pain of being sent to the slammer, to accept. Society does have some rights too. I got home about an hour ago, again having to park on the street, and had to take several heavy bags/ hamper, into the house. Just as I was maneuvering the stuff out of the car (and it was still light out), a scuzzy looking person (actually a woman) approached down the street. I have been here 15 years, and do not like feeling what I felt like, but felt like it I did. I popped back into the car till she had walked on by. I do not like running gauntlets just to enter the public library, and dealing with out of control detritus at Big Box America. And I tire of pointing out that many people who critique the attitude I evince really, if they will honestly evaluate things, do not actually have to deal with these problems in their communities (in most of which, further, law enforcement takes, ahem, a rather more strident attitude towards such individuals).
I live in what many consider the homelessness capital of the country, and contrary to what kaysixteen has proposed — saying that those who criticize his contempt and disapproval for the homeless just don't have much experience with the problem — I feel compassion for the homeless and think contempt solves nothing except making the judger feel morally superior. No kid grows up thinking, "When I'm older, I want to live in a filthy situation with no place to call home!" It's a combination of terrible factor that have led to this, and we all should deplore the situation, not the person. And for those who want to cast the first stone, I think Jesus said something about that.
Where did I say I have contempt for the homeless? Answer: nowhere. This is a forum for scholars, PhDs, etc., and I get to expect better critical reading than that. I am the one advocating that the mentally ill be taken off of the streets and put in decent, well-run, evidence-based institutions. And I am also the one advocating that narcotics addicts (a more positive term than 'junkie') be treated the same way, and incarcerated if they refuse. But it is also true that, again, society does have some rights, and mindless espousal of absolutist notions of individual 'rights' and 'freedom' just ain't gonna cut it.
It is true, that said, that I do have contmept for junkies who refuse to seek help, yes. That would more or less be equivalent to the attitude I would have if Person X goes to the doc, is diagnosed with high blood pressure and told to go on a med, but refuses to do so, and then has a heart attack or a stroke. Of course, if said junkie is seriously mentally ill, see above.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on June 20, 2023, 04:36:57 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on June 20, 2023, 04:14:53 PMQuote from: jimbogumbo on June 20, 2023, 02:46:31 PMOF COURSE WE DON'T WANT TO LET THEM JUST SHOOT UP. OF COURSE WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE HOMELESS, SO CAN IT PLEASE.
While I think Kay may be rather "abrupt" in his language, I share his frustration with the implication that not dealing with egregious behaviour by drug users and homeless people has no cost to the community so they should just be left alone. There are real long term costs that harm mostly the poorest members of the community who can't escape. (This of course includes the drug dealers and homeless people because when the neighborhood becomes a post-apocalyptic nightmare, it affects them as well.)
Literally no one on this board has suggested they should be just left alone, nor that there are are no costs. No one.
So what
sanctions would you support for this behaviour, and what sort of
preventative measures would you support to prevent this behaviour in the first place? What actions should be taken
in the here and now, whether or not long terms policies and programs are put in place which are intended to reduce the problems in the longer term?
I've seen videos of small business owners in San Fransisco who are going out of business due to theft, vandalism, people sleeping in their doorways and defecating on the sidewalks in front of their stores. (Who knew that would drive away customers???) Law enforcement has been apparently told to
not intervene in many of these cases. How does that serve the best interests of the community? What should be done in those cases
right now, regardless of whether low-cost housing and other things are in the works for the future?
Quote from: kaysixteen on June 20, 2023, 11:48:20 AMarsewipe unbelievers
From "scumbag junkies" to "arsewipe believers." Dang, K16, definitely the language of Christ.
Quote from: dismalist on June 20, 2023, 05:35:58 PMSo, on libraries we get from books to the homeless. Only a government operation can even consider this.
There's a good book
Homelessness Is a Housing Problem: How Structural Factors Explain U.S. Patterns, Gregg Colburn and Clayton Page Aldern, U California Press 2022.
In public discussion homelessness is usually associated with addiction and mental illness and further personal problems. The authors do something very clever -- they examine the regional variation of homelessness, for in each region the personal causes will tend to have the same frequency.
Guess what? Homelessness is caused by lack of homes, which leads to high rents, which leads to every personal problem causing homelessness. It is highly concentrated by State -- New York, California, and only a few others.
Those high prices are caused by homeowners acting politically as NIMBY's. As usual, the problem is us.
And problems are all more acute on both an individual and external level when people are unhomed. A lot more bad things can happen to someone who has a drinking problem on the street. It's a lot safer to pass out drunk on your couch than in the street and you're not going to use nearly as many emergency services.
Quote from: nebo113 on June 21, 2023, 05:17:50 AMQuote from: kaysixteen on June 20, 2023, 11:48:20 AMarsewipe unbelievers
From "scumbag junkies" to "arsewipe unbelievers." Dang, K16, definitely the language of Christ.
Gosh. Since my post apparently led to that label, I'm kind of. . . . honored? I used to only be a Dear Lady. Is this a promotion or a demotion?
I restate my original question in that earlier response: How about
just trying to be decent to other people (no matter what kind of name or label one claims for themself or tries to affix to others)--both in society at large, or in this particular discussion board?
And genuinely asking (
not trying to be sarcastic): where does the line lie between civil disagreement and personal attack on The Fora these days? The first item on the list of Fora rules reads, "1. Don't personally attack or harass other users. You know what crosses this line, don't do it." If I crossed it, I do apologize. That was in no way my intent.
However, because I/others had the temerity to offer alternate points of view--in a direct answer to the question of "what a proper Christian attitude" might be--that does not make us ignorant, unfit for engagement in calm and rational conversation (even if that conversation becomes lively), intellectually unfit, deserving of being targeted with playground name-calling, or any of the rest.
Earlier this spring, a thread discussed why the activity on this forum has declined from previous levels. For some, perhaps this thread is an example of at least one possible reason.
Finally, to apl68: I do sincerely apologize for my contribution in derailing the focus of your original thread. You've raised an interesting and serious concern in your field, and in society more broadly, and I did not intend in any way to minimize it. I meant no disrespect to you or the topic, truly.
I've been following this thread, even after it got derailed (partly my fault as well). All the interesting rhetoric has buried the underlying question that k16 and others have posed, whether directly or indirectly: What exactly are we supposed to do to combat homelessness, drug addiction, mental illnesses, et al?
It's easy for us to wag our fingers and vilify someone like k16 who uses derogatory references, because it can be absolving of our own behavior, choices, and secret values, when we jump on k16 for using the derogatory references, but not going much beyond that in advocating and supporting the homeless and those with mental issues and substance addictions.
If a homeless family showed up at your door and asked to stay at your place? What would you do? What would Jesus do?
Yeah, I thought so.
The problem is us.
Ok, I'm closing this and issuing some warnings.
As a reminder, while we do have a pretty high threshold for letting people work things out in threads, "no personal attacks" is one of the few rules we do have, and there are posts here that absolutely cross that line.