The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (recommendations, crimes, camping)

[maduro lonsdale]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

The debate hasn’t suggested the camp fires should be “ignored”. The debate, as I frame it, is that the mantle of guilt should not be indiscriminately applied to a broad heterogenous population, the majority of whom are not creating that risk.

Your “gun violence” comment doesn’t make any sense to me. It seems a complete non sequitur, unless you explain it further. However, I’ll draw on a comparison that uses gun violence to make my point, since you’ve brought it up:
Disclosure first: I’m not an anti-gun advocate.

Whenever there is a mass shooting, or cumulative gun violence statistic news story, public outcry erupts from the anti-gun faction, right? Without a doubt, there is quite a lot of gun violence. And nearly all gun violence is committed by gun owners. Right? .... do you think it is appropriate to vilify “Gun Owners” as being dangerous to the public? Or is it more appropriate to identify the perpetrators as per their more specific circumstances (i.e. terrorists, psychotics, irate husband/wife, suicidally depressed, clumsy hunter, careless, paranoid ...)?

Yeah but you take away the guns from those people. An idiot incel with a jackknife can't kill 100 in a school in 10 minutes.

Just like you should not throw your hands up and say "oh well" about the small but real segment of the homeless population that can be identified as seriously problematic, including to his fellow homeless people who are too often victims of their crimes too.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by maduro lonsdale

Yeah but you take away the guns from those people. An idiot incel with a jackknife can't kill 100 in a school in 10 minutes.

Just like you should not throw your hands up and say "oh well" about the small but real segment of the homeless population that can be identified as seriously problematic, including to his fellow homeless people who are too often victims of their crimes too.

I didn't. Never have.

[maduro lonsdale]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I didn't. Never have.

Denying/minimizing/deflecting evidence is a form of that.

The "yeah but" deflection.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by maduro lonsdale

Denying/minimizing/deflecting evidence is a form of that.

The "yeah but" deflection.

I didn’t deny, minimize or deflect. I have stated the distinction clearly. Keep probing, “new” poster.

[maduro lonsdale]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I didn’t deny, minimize or deflect. I have stated the distinction clearly. Keep probing, “new” poster.

Sure there may be a significant increase in the incidence of fires caused by homeless living in encampments,

BUT don't generalize

BUT the statistics are maybe based on older statistics which may not be the best

BUT not all homeless live in camps

BUT homed people start fires too

The truth of all of those (which I'm not necessarily denying) does not and should not obscure the statistical validity of the premise.

Painting a broad brush can also refer to the ineffectual public response to homelessness, which tends, in my observation and reading, to place insufficient effort on sub-pops that might respond better to help.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by maduro lonsdale

Sure there may be a significant increase in the incidence of fires caused by homeless living in encampments,

BUT don't generalize

BUT the statistics are maybe based on older statistics which may not be the best

BUT not all homeless live in camps

BUT homed people start fires too

The truth of all of those (which I'm not necessarily denying) does not and should not obscure the statistical validity of the premise.

Painting a broad brush can also refer to the ineffectual public response to homelessness, which tends, in my observation and reading, to place insufficient effort on sub-pops that might respond better to help.

All of your “BUT” statements are true and valid. None are dismissive or minimalizing.

There was no “statistical validity” to Skygazer’s specious sophistry. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. At best his analysis could be called ridiculous.

If you mean the news story's statistical basis, it’s not any better. It is based on statistics assembled from new data reporting protocols (as acknowledged by the fire department officials). A year from now you can start to draw a picture. 3-5 years from now you can report trends.

What you are trying to say with your last “broad brush” sentence needs clarification.

[maduro lonsdale]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

All of your “BUT” statements are true and valid. None are dismissive or minimalizing.

There was no “statistical validity” to Skygazer’s specious sophistry. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. At best his analysis could be called ridiculous.

If you mean the news story's statistical basis, it’s not any better. It is based on statistics assembled from new data reporting protocols (as acknowledged by the fire department officials). A year from now you can start to draw a picture. 3-5 years from now you can report trends.

What you are trying to say with your last “broad brush” sentence needs clarification.

"True and valid" does not mean they're still not a "yeah, but what about..." deflection.

For purposes of examining brush fires started by homeless encampments and how to address them, what non-camp-dwellers do and what housed people do are irrelevant.

What's wrong with "statistics assembled from new data reporting protocols?" Aren't we always supposed to be improving our data quality whether we're talking global warming or guns or homelessness? I know it complicates comparing data sets but that doesn't mean we're not supposed to forge ahead using the best we know now. Waiting 3-5 years for more studies costing more $$ helps nobody...well for sure not the homeless who need the help the most. Prop HH $$ is running out and the vast majority of the projects funded by it are still in the planning stages and heck, are more likely to end up in court (NIMBY) anyway. And Prop HH was conceived in a world of fewer homeless. Should HH backers have waited longer to REALLY study the problem?

It's almost as bad as climate change deniers who say "yeah but it was really cold this winter and it rained a lot." The wait and study and see boat sailed on that a long time ago and it's sailing on the homeless crisis too.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

To be educated about topics and mature in responses, as opposed to seeking to fear monger, for starters.

I'll say. It certainly leaves out many of the people on this thread, unfortunately.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Almost but not quite. There is a distinction between sensationalizing for commercial survival ... and fear mongering.

News media, commercial news media such as NBC, rely on sensational news for their competitive survival. They necessarily pounce on and present sensational depictions of events and issues - well, sensationally.

Compare with how NPR presents stories absent commercial competitive drive: they cover all sides of issues in depth without focusing on creating “gotcha’s” and fear points.

Fear mongering, on the other hand:


Fear mongering is what some posters are doing for entertainment in this thread.

Look, jm1982 posted a link to a news report by a reputable news station and reputable reporters, Eric Leonard being one of them, that bolsters what we've been saying: An increase in homeless in any given area increases the risk of property damage due to fire. Call it fear mongering or whatever pleases you; however, you cannot simply discount the credibility of the story by employing a reductionism.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Look, jm1982 posted a link to a news report by a reputable news station and reputable reporters, Eric Leonard being one of them, that bolsters what we've been saying: An increase in homeless in any given area increases the risk of property damage due to fire. Call it fear mongering or whatever pleases you; however, you cannot simply discount the credibility of the story by employing a reductionism.

Several things are catywhompus about your post above.

1. For-profit news thrives, as I pointed out, on sensationalizing stories ... doesn’t mean the event covered is “fake” ... but very often means it is not thorough or nuanced, and basically unbalanced.

2. Your claim about “an increase in homeless ... increases risk” is exactly an example of #1, above ... and, in your case of forum posting, also a case of lacking nuance and balance ... intentionally ... because you are on a campaign to scaremonger about homelessness.

3. The responsible way of discussing the issue of danger from fires caused by homeless camps in the brush is to specify the circumstances. If you had done that, I wouldn’t be in this exchange with you. But your agenda is to vilify the entire broad population of homeless most of whom are not arsonists, intentionally or accidentally, nor criminally dangerous in other ways.

4. I CAN ‘discount’ the credibility of the story, as I have been doing, by demonstrating the nature of the broader picture. I do not ‘deny’ the factual parts of the story ... but I do ‘discount’ the presentation as grossly failing to do service to any fair and productive ends.