Submitted by [deleted] t3_y3ukjo in washingtondc
The failure of the District to provide housing and mental/addiction treatment for those in need is no more evident than in McPherson Square. There are dozens of homeless tents and countless piles of trash. Homeless people who desperately need help are left to fend for themselves. All this is two blocks from the White House. It’s truly disgraceful on so many levels.
How do you suggest forcing people into treatment?
Most of them don't want help.
Lol, you even threw in a "blocks away from the White House" jab.
🤣😂🤣😂 its been like that for the past thirty years 🤣😂🤣😂🤣
And quite a few of them were dumped on Washington DC from other communities with a one way bus ticket.
They cleaned up Franklin Square. Maybe McPherson is next.
Yeah - what's worse? People living in tents or people being hauled away to institutions against their will?
Tents for sure. Move these folks to an institution and keep them there until they stop engaging in antisocial behavior. This is how it’s done in Korea and I just had the best time there. Walking at night? No problem. Take metro without being harassed? No problem. A general feeling that the public space is available for everyone and not abused by the antisocial few that ruin it for everyone else but are defended by a powerful lobby of upper-middle class professionals that live far away in gated communities? Absolutely.
You’re just hiding the problem, without doing anything to help these people
You just them all instituted like AHS Asylum
Those aren’t deviants, they are people who had lives and for some reason, found themselves abandoned.
They could’ve been just like you, and you aren’t exempt from possible suffering the same fate
[deleted]
I don’t believe this
Don’t worry, in 6 months the city will make a big show of encampment clearing and they’ll just go somewhere else, maybe back to Franklin Park or Columbus Circle
[deleted]
You not believing the truth doesn’t change the truth, asshole
It’s not the truth. Just your opinion. Calm down lol
Youre delusional
I’m just saying what most people are thinking. And I know you know that.
It’s actually gotten better in the past couple years.
Why don’t you go get involuntarily committed and see how that feels.
I’m not screaming at the top of my longs while pissing and punching random strangers.
What are you basing your information on? Not saying that you are wrong but I'm curious.
I'm of the opinion that there are a number of people who are chronically homeless that are damaged mentally to the point that they will never be able to hold down a job and pay for the expenses of life, especially in a place as expensive as DC.
Don't want to give up drugs or alcohol
Would love to get off the street but just need some help to get the ball rolling.
Combination of 1 & 2. They could be in such a situation where they don't want to get off the street but really aren't in a mental state where they can make those kinds of decisions.
Don't want to be homeless but they are concerned about the condition and safety of shelters. I've never been in that situation or been inside a shelter myself so I am hardly going to speak on something as an authority that I don't know about.
So first of all how many homeless are in DC in the first place? Out of that number how many can become working individuals that can hold down a place of their own.
Those folks have to be dealt with differently from those that simply can't maintain a place of their own even if they had one as they have a different set of needs.
Ok, so I'm thinking an honest appraisal of the current shelters is in order and bring them all up to a store standard that dignifies people and doesn't tolerate unsanitary conditions or stealing or violence. Where support to break addictions are in place and it would be great to have a large facility in a central location so that folks don't feel a need to be on the bus when they have used the bathroom on themselves and pose a health risk to others. If they have vans that can transport them as needed then you eliminate that issue altogether.
Yeah I am very much aware of that and that issue raises a very important question.....
What if it's someone who is severely mentally handicapped? This raises the question even further of where to draw the line to determine that in the first place.
What I am thinking is that if the problems with the shelters are addressed properly like sanitation, safety where people aren't stealing from one another then it may be that more folks are willing to stay in them. At the very least that would be a move in the right direction.
Another one issue is that many of those parks are places where one isn't supposed to be spending the night legally so that's something to consider. They are public parks that are designed for all to be able to enjoy them but they are much less desirable as such places when there are homeless folks occupying them.
I'm of the opinion that there is little to be done now to change that but that that needs to change in a way that's best for everyone all around.
You can't force people to get mental health treatment or addiction treatment. There absolutely are services available, and people choose not to use them . Also, plenty of people go into drug addition treatment and then fall right back in their own ways so it's really not this end all be all you try to make it out to be. There is also housing available, but that often comes with strict hours and rules that drug and alcohol addicts simply do not want to adhere to because they'd rather get high or drink on their own terms. I go by there daily, and I see city, non-profit, or other services there pretty much daily. I also see constant drug dealing and drug use there. You try to paint a picture that these are innocent homeless people there by no choice with no help, and that is absolutely not the case.
Ducks are migratory.
The amount of anti homeless people and beliefs that they should all just be hauled off to institutions in a country where those institutions are inhumane on here is insanely depressing.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I spent time in inpatient psychiatric units involuntary committed a handful of times when I was younger because I had a rather debilitating phase of bipolar disorder that lasted, on and off, about 10 years. I later saw faces of people living on the streets who I was in treatment with - they'd be homeless, outside the liquor store, in emergency rooms, down by the river in a tent...
The treatment is there, the community services boards are on the other side of inpatient treatment to support people once they get treatment and return to the community - the resources are all available, and shelters are available for those who are not drinking or using drugs. In fact the local community service board is what got me on the path to recovery - while many people I was in the hospital with went back to their substance use, rough living, etc.
This isn't the early 20th century and we can't involuntarily commit these people to psychiatric or substance-abuse-recovery facilities. It's a tough balance. And some of these people (and think of Portland, San Francisco) actually want to live free, do whatever the hell they want to do when they want to. I've lived through it. The resources are there, putting their hands out to the most vulnerable to lift them up - but quite frankly some of the folks are so far gone and are hell bent on living their lifestyle (that seems rough and sucky to us) you can't turn them around.
It's a conundrum for sure.
It’s more depressing to be locked out of public spaces because people like you are stuck in a cognitive dissonance cycle. When you can’t address the problem you resort to virtue signaling.
but there were tons of babies. and then the next day, all gone. but that makes sense!
“When you can’t address the problem” what? You literally are the one arguing against those who are advocating addressing the problem and instead hauling them off to inhumane conditions? The term virtue signaling is objectively dumb by the way, you should definitely strive towards some sort of virtue, and if that virtue is not locking up people in inhumane centers, that’s a virtue I’m willing to publicly shame you for not wanting to have
Very puritan of you. But again, this is just your opinion. You’re entitled to it as I am to mine.
Puritan? What?! Lol
This might be a good moment to reflect on that.
Yea, the person advocating for progressive change here is a puritan and the one with a 1840s view of mental health and addiction is not. Every teacher failed you.
There is no such thing as progress. There is no end goal to society. There are just people and families. The general welfare should always benefit the greatest amount of people possible. I want to live in a world with walkable cities and safe streets. This isn’t progress, is just what I want to see in my life. You’re welcome to continue on your moral crusade, though I encourage you to think about working families and individuals who do not put themselves front and center and demand special treatment.
I am not painting a picture that all these people are innocent. I agree with many of your points. What I am saying is that it’s disgraceful that such a situation is allowed to exist. The NPS and DC ignore it.
The square is ‘pretty clean?? Surely, you are joking or have not visited since 2012. I can send you a recent picture of the genes and garbage.
Yes, I agree with you. California recently enacted C.A.R.E.S Courts to deal with this issue. Let's see how they work. One thing that can be done now is to enforce laws against public camping. I understand some don’t want to go to shelters but frankly, you don’t get a choice. A tent on public land is not an option.
Who said the status quo was progressive policy? Ridiculous assumption
How much of what you're complaining about is because of lack of removal by the city? The last time I was there (since my post) there was some trash but it was mostly around full to over-flowing containers.
I’m not saying anything about the status quo. In fact, the status quo needs to change because I am tired of being tormented by mentally ill individuals. What I did say was that no policy can be “progressive” because progress implies direction. No such thing exists. Therefore the best policy ought to be the one most utilitarian in its application, regardless of any normative impulses to alter it in such a way that sets in motion what you and a few others in this thread have been talking about.
You must be kidding. Please go there soon.
Oh I’m sorry I didn’t know that you had this unilateral power to make words that mean things, and are used both colloquially and academically to mean their respective things on a daily basis, but apparently everyone’s a moron except for you. And then you wonder why you’re so alone?
You’re the one asserting full control over a word. My take on whether policy has a teleological edge to it does not conflict with any existing definition. This is an active area of debate in academia, and while there is no conclusive answer to this preposition, I am of the camp that does not buy that history (or policy for that matter) is directional. Your insults are delicious btw. Keep going.
No, rejecting your outrageously false premise and leaving it there. If I use a word according to its definition and how everyone else uses it and you personally disapprove because it’s inconvenient to your politics, I did not, in fact, exert any control over the word. Extremely odd to accuse someone of something very specific that you JUST did.
It’s not actively debated in academia, unless you mean unaccredited regional colleges in the southeast.
Email your professors right now and ask them whether there is a telos history.
Rejecting your intentionally dishonest premise that I made any sort of statement on whether there was telos in history or not, but rather a statement about linguistic use of a used word.
What’s the point of always replying in bad faith? I honestly don’t understand what you get out of this other than feeling the satisfaction of trolling someone else.
Linguistic use of a word that implies direction. Progressive is inherently teleological.
I’m not. I’m serious about what I am saying. I’m more curious than anything as to what you think because we have such widely different conceptions of policy. I’m truly trying to understand where is the hole in my reasoning.
Ah we’re not. If I used the word progressive the way it means what it means in policy and your argument is to put the word in a vacuum (no words exist in a vacuum) then say the word is objectively useless, and then purposely misunderstand an argument about academia to make it about telos vs the word. That is simply not what someone who is curious does. This is either called arguing in bad faith or having a cognitive disorder.
You’re still on this. I made it very clear that rejecting a word that is CONSISTENTLY USED IN AND OUTSIDE OF ACADEMIA, with NO REAL ACADEMIC DEBATE OVER ITS USE (academic debate over the use of progressive is what you answered to and went on about telos because you only know how to reply in bad faith) is simply trolling. If you want to have a conversation about policy but refuse to use the lexicon as it is defined because of personal reasons, that’s fine, but you made a decision not to have any conversations with anyone other than those who already agree with your point about USE of the word (that all of academia disagrees with you on). If that’s your prerequisite go troll someone else, but to start claiming you’re “truly curious” while essentially deviating the entire conversation so others have to use your personal vocabulary is weird as fuck.
It’s incredible how obtuse you’re being with the etymology of this word.
Words have meaning, not all meanings are universally agreed upon. You’re ignoring everything I’ve said so far. Are you by any chance borrowing from this progressive definition?
not sure if trolling or
Yeah, well when most of the mental health and housing services in the city are shit, what do you expect?
Not trolling.
[deleted]
solidrecommendations t1_isagdsr wrote
I see the city and ngos with services there regularly