OTHER Problems at Libraries

[kaysixteen]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.)

[dismalist]

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!

[jimbogumbo]

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.

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.)

[ciao_yall]

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.

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.

[jimbogumbo]

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.

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.

[ciao_yall]

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.

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 are seeing to it that what funds are available are being used for important community projects with long-term results.

 

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.

[dismalist]

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.

[kaysixteen]

'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).

[Hegemony]

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.

[kaysixteen]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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?
 

[nebo113]

arsewipe unbelievers

From "scumbag junkies" to "arsewipe believers."  Dang, K16, definitely the language of Christ.