There is homelessness, and then there is drug and/or alcohol addiction.
> Those who are convicted of sleeping outdoors could be given the option to avoid jail time by instead entering into a mandatory treatment program for at least 12 months.
What happens if someone is homeless and not addicted to drugs or alcohol? Why assume everyone who is homeless is also an addict? It seems entirely reasonable that someone homeless AND addicted to drugs/alcohol should be required to enter into a treatment program.
Yeah, this is punishing people for being homeless, just like Boise (though their city rules were eventually overturned)...
They had a law that it was illegal to sleep outdoors as long as a designated shelter said they had a bed available. One of the more heavily Christian shelters said their policy was to always say they had a bed available, i.e. turn nobody away.
But to stay at their shelter meant mandatory church attendance, mandatory prayer and other religious observances.
So it became de facto enforced that the homeless could face religious indoctrination or jail as their options. Was eventually turned over by threats of or actual moves to challenge constitutionality.
Your heart doesn't have to bleed for such a person but I think most people would agree it is tiresome to see homeless people in the street. It is also a public health issue. Doing heroin in the middle of the sidewalk and throwing the needle on the ground is obviously extremely un-hygienic and dangerous to everyone.
I'm not sure what sympathy has to do with anything we are discussing? People experiencing homelessness do not need sympathy, they need homes and community and support. It is a luxury to be sympathetic because the most sympathetic people are not the people dealing with issues associated with homelessness.
In my opinion the way the US deals with homelessness is a disaster because we have a disorganized, disconnected and dysfunctional social net. E.g., how is someone with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia able to treat their condition if they cannot get their medicine because they don't have health insurance? How can they get a home without a job or family support? The list of such issues goes on and on.
Telling people that they just need to have more sympathy and to accept seeing homeless people on the street is a losing strategy and not a solution. In my opinion the solutions include universal healthcare, robust social support systems and drug/alcohol treatment programs. These programs benefit everyone. At the same time it is not crazy to say, "I do not want to see drug addicted people on my doorstep every day."
Perhaps you also agree that these are part of an ideal solution but framing it as sympathy for the homeless is a losing strategy. Everyone would benefit from a social welfare system set up in a sane way, but somehow every discussion in the US turns into an "us-versus-them" mentality. It is like a reality distortion field and a victory of the media-propaganda complex.
Edit: to summarize, homelessness presents two problems, one for the individual experiencing it, and one for society. Solutions need to target both problems. But to deny the reality of one or the other is a critical error.
I have to side with the other commenter, you're just waving the issue away while grandstanding. The article discusses jailing homeless people, which would remove them from the view of the public and... and what?
Do you think the flood of sympathy will then be unleashed, unhindered as it is by the disgusting view of the subjects of the sympathy? No, what will happen is that an issue that almost no one cares about (except, like you, in terms of it being a bother) is further removed from public view.
The chance of people being sympathetic and wanting to help those who suffer is much higher if the homeless people aren't removed from their view.
Yeah. I think the ugly thing that the world is going to learn about american's (people outside america think we've plumbed the depths of depravity--we haven't, yet) casual eliminationist views sooner or later.
Most (white) people I meet in the USA, even nice people, almost all operate on the idea that someone "going away" is a solution to problems and when you press they rarely have a care or concern for where that person goes or what happens to them.
Before this decade is out we'll see death camps in this country for indigence (among other things) and no one will give a shit.
I never said what I think about the law. I think we can agree that it does not address many of the fundamental issues that people experiencing homelessness face. The alternative, however, is not more sympathy but rather specific solutions like a sane health care system (which might include mandatory drug or alcohol rehabilitation) and social service support. Everyone has the right to live in dignity which includes a safe place to live.
> The chance of people being sympathetic and wanting to help those who suffer is much higher if the homeless people aren't removed from their view.
I disagree with this completely. I think seeing homeless people in the street every day makes people think the government is incompetent and unable to deal with a serious issue. This leads to people adopting more extreme measures like exactly the one we are discussing right now.
You would be too if you got priced out of your apartment and didn't have family to support you. When I was living in Oakland, the vast majority of homeless people I met use to live nearby. Happy people don't get addicted to drugs.
I was functionally homeless for 11 years but never used substances and wasn't psychotic.
There was a very large fraction of other homeless people who couldn't hold jobs because they were disabled, elderly, under-skilled, not presentable, or lacked the resources and support to "pick themselves up by their [invisible] bootstraps." Some had personality aggression issues that couldn't hold jobs too that didn't fall under danger to themselves or others and so they weren't necessarily able to access mental healthcare. And also some had debts, credit problems, and criminal records that presented obstacles to employment opportunities.
I knew 2 elderly retired teachers who were homeless because they lacked family and resources but were otherwise "normal", cool, and social-able.
I understand that it's human nature of privileged, inexperienced, ignorant people to scapegoat and dehumanize groups they don't understand.
There is a big difference between professors being "free" to publish and express their views on a subject, and teaching that same subject in such a way that their views are presented as the only acceptable views on that subject.
Honest question.. where? Most bread seems to be high in additives and promoted as a “healthy food”, like additional vitamines etc.
And even when buying natural bread without these added “benefits”, it often has high levels of sodium (up to like 200mg per slice).
Bread is one of the easiest, most plain things to make, yet finding high quality bread isn’t straightforward in the States. But I do really want to know which shops and which brand you get, I’d love to find good bread lol.
Yup, agreed. The first thing my gf complained about when coming to North America for 6 months was the food. And she never stopped complaining.
Then we went to Germany and I finally understood.
Not only can I pop in to the local bakery on the corner (or the next corner, or the next) for the most amazing breads ever, but I could also go to a Rewe or Edeka and get quite good bread that's still head-and-shoulders above anything in America.
My fav right now is a walnut spelt bread roll that I get for 90 cents apiece at Edeka. A bit pricey but it's worth it. Put on some President butter [1] and some cheeses and it's divine!
Yeah, I was like that. It’s been almost 5 years so complaining is to a minimum, I got used to a lot of the food, but bread is one of those “staple foods” to me that still has me complaining every now and then haha
Search Google maps for "bakery" and sort by rating.
It's not hard to find a good bakery in any dense area in the US. I have to imagine people claiming otherwise are indulging in Yankee-bashing, a favorite European pastime.
What one considers a "good bread" or "good bakery" depends on the person. I'm from Switzerland. When I was in the United States (Bay Area, San Francisco), in 2000-2003, I did _not_ find what I consider a "good bread". I did find "bakery".
I mean, in San Francisco, you’ll find plenty of good bread and pastries, it’s the only mid size city in the US that has enough French people to have two competing French language schools for kiddos.
I live in the largest city in the US and saying that the average bread/pastry quality even comes close to Europe is insane.
Sure, you can get good bread here. However it's going to cost you 5x what it costs in Europe and it might take you up to 30 minutes to get too depending on where you live. Most bread in the US is low quality. Most bread in Europe is high quality. There is good bread to be found in the US, and there's bad bread in Europe. But the average bread just isn't even close to being equal.
I can walk five minutes to a local grocery store and get fresh bread from their bakery. Immigrant bakeries are also great, I had some buns from a chinese bakery last weekend that were a "if this is what food is supposed to taste like, what have I been eating until now???" moment
My partner is Chinese and so we get Chinese (and bread-like products from other Asian countries) quite often.
In my opinion, it’s tasty but also not quite what I would expect bread to be like, mainly because it’s so soft. It is a running joke between us that Chinese teeth can’t chew through European bread (like an actual French baguette).
But agreed, Chinese bread > American bread for flavor at least!
> Bread is one of the easiest, most plain things to make, yet finding high quality bread isn’t straightforward in the States
Finding high quality bread isn’t straightforward anywhere in EU. It either has sugar or additives or it is cooked at a too low temperature to be useful.
Wondering why someone did not solve the problem already? Of all the countries in the world US is brimming with entrepreneurs who want to "solve" a consumer problem, and with modern population I assume there is enough demand on fresh/healthier products - why on earth someone wouldn't try to fix it there?
Most Americans are fine eating stale or preserved bread. (Almost all pre-sliced supermarket bread is the latter.) You just don’t have enough people to spread the cost of baking fresh bread throughout the day outside wealthy communities.
That said, a lot of European bread is also trash. There are simply some bread-loving ones where it isn’t. Similarly, there are places in America with great bread (New Orleans, New York and Miami), and places without (Northern California and the Midwest).
> That said, a lot of European bread is also trash.
Yes thank you for pointing this out. I've noticed even the bakeries around me (in Switzerland) aren't that great; for me the best are from the farmers markets and even still you have to be discerning for which are actually good. On the other side I've had some fantastic bread in the US from specialty bakeries.
Solving the problem of european tourists being unable to figure out that they have to walk to the bakery section of the supermarket rather than the shelf-stable bread-like products section if they want something they consider bread does not sound like much of a business opportunity.
>Solving the problem of european tourists being unable to figure out that they have to walk to the bakery section of the supermarket rather than the shelf-stable bread-like products section if they want something they consider bread
Every supermarket I can locally go to has a bread-on- the shelf section, as well as a very fresh bread section. Not to mention 'bread shops' exist.
Don't underestimate the ability of tourists from anywhere to not understand how to look around a shop.
Finding bread in America that isn't over-overloaded with sugar is very difficult.
Quite a few of my family take their own bread to the US.
Of late, the problem has been solved as, apart from work, people just aren't travelling there anymore - for non bread-related reasons, of course.
For the US fam that now travel back to the eu (an awful lot) more, they go wild for eu bread: it just doesn't taste like cak, /sp - i mean cake.
Because this isn't the sort of problem some tech bro entrepreneur can solve. Its a systematic problem in the whole supply chain that end with consumer demand. And this is harder to do, once that whole supply chain has been destroyed. You need to shift the whole culture in terms of what they value and how it works.
None of the breads listed there I would consider to be of the category "bread" as a German, and what I would be looking for when I wanted one.
Yes, a French baguette-type soft white bread is formally "bread", but it is treated as a different/single category here, as "white bread". With examples of typical bread being, say: https://www.hofpfisterei.de/download/Hofpfisterei-Sortiment-... And I don't think the images really carry across the difference (and variety) in texture and density, to someone who simply never had this kind of "non-soft" bread. You can spread cold butter from the fridge on it without breaking it, maybe that gives away a hint towards the difference. Also note the variety of grain: rye, spelt, wheat, barley, oats, in different compositions and degrees of fineness. And this is just one brand/bakery.
Some more "typical German bread" images. I picked types that maybe convey the difference to "white bread" the best in viewing:
Five years ago it was a rarity (in fact the first place I can clearly recall being asked was a Five Guys, when I said I didn't want a bun - no gluten problems, thanks, just don't need the extra calories). Nowadays I'd say it's more common than not at full-service restaurants.
Southern US; I live in a modest-size metro of about 400k and spend plenty of time in bigger cities.
Yep. My child was just accepted into a G&T program; it replaces gym period once a week, and I believe the teacher is responsible for all the G&T classes in the entire district (3 elementary schools, 1 middle, 1 high) - so if she stopped teaching G&T and started teaching an additional class, it would help exactly one school's grade level. Maybe better than nothing, but not by much.
You are right but this is a fairly new development, driven by activist lawsuits. It doesn’t have to be this way, these sort of changes are not irreversible.
Not necessarily a good idea. Dealing with disagreements, distractions, conflicts, low and high performers around you, that's all part of social education. It's not explicitly on the curriculum, but if you just give everybody a super sheltered cotton-clad education environment until they are 18 then they will be better at using the pythagorean theorem or discussing Shakespeare, but they will utterly fail on the street and will scream hate crime the first time somebody disagrees with them at the workplace.
I'm obviously exaggerating, but it's not purely good to remove "distracting elements".
I wonder, have you personally been in a university environment recently? Within the past ten or fifteen years? I ask because, as someone who attended a supposedly "good" university in the USA, before going I had an interest in the humanities but was quickly discouraged by the number of individuals who seemed to be possessed by propaganda. I mentioned in another comment, for example, that I saw another student have as their desktop background a photo of Mao and the cultural revolution. So this is the backdrop against which Jordan Peterson is saying, you know, there actually are Western intellectuals worth reading and listening to and thinking about. And yes, on a personal level, I did get to read some of those writers you mentioned. It did not surprise me that they turn out to be much deeper than Jordon Peterson himself, but I don't think he ever claimed to be a revolutionary thinker? I consider him more of an evangelist than anything else. How many intellectuals can we say have truly had an impact with their ideas? The number is small. I think the reason Jordan Peterson suddenly became a phenomenon is because he was at least brave enough to call out ridiculousness when he saw it (at least at the very beginning of his celebrity, I cannot speak for his recent comments because I stopped paying attention once he started going into politics).
The stuff Jordan says about there being some value in the classics is good. Some of his stuff about meaning is good. Little to none of it is original.
He’s also a raving misogynist. I have two daughters. He can fuck right off with that shit. I mean it would bother me if I didn’t have two daughters, but that makes it more personal.
Peterson is one of those people who sounds reasonable and even compelling at first, but as you keep listening eventually you get to the part where he starts clucking like a chicken. Unfortunately that is his original stuff.
People who start reasonable then lead into nonsense always make me think of the Monty Python lumberjack song skit. They had several skits with that premise. The woman who does Philomena Cunk is a modern comedian who riffs on this.
His wife and his daughter are public personas. Both have Youtube channels. I like his wife's channel quite a bit, and I spent a few hours years ago listening to his daughter. Both have talked about him at length while I was listening, and neither has said anything that would suggest they are unhappy with him or his influence on their lives.
His daughter has a husband and her own income stream, i.e., is no longer economically dependent on him.
I've also listened to the man himself for at least a hundred hours. I would be interested to read an explanation in support of your statement "he’s also a raving misogynist" because I've heard nothing that would lead me to conclude it or even to suspect it.
He probably believes that marriage and motherhood are best for most women. Is that contributing to your belief that he is a misogynist?
> He probably believes that marriage and motherhood are best for most women.
I don’t want to go on a quote hunt. I’ve seen some. But this is the crux of it.
My wife is a stay at home mom. It’s something she’s wanted to do since we were dating. I’m supportive of it, and she’s become kind of the pillar of the whole extended family.
That was her choice. It’s what she wanted. Get it?
It wasn’t my choice. I’d have supported her if she wanted a career. I supported her giving it a try but it wasn’t for her.
It’s definitely not some windbag public intellectual’s choice, or the government’s. The thing you quoted sounds innocuous until a politician gets ahold of it. Then we find out what it really means.
I guess the most damning thing to me is that so many incel and Tate types like him. By its fruit shall it be known. Marxism sounds liberating but if that’s true then why does every Marxist nation turn into a dictatorship or a mafia state?
A lot of things Marx said sound innocuous until politicians and men with guns get hold of them. Then you find out what they really mean.
Any time someone says they know what other people should do with their lives and they have some grand theory of history full of great meaning and purpose all ready to slot people into their appropriate roles, run away.
I've never heard Peterson (or his wife, who also holds the opinion that most women are better off if they choose motherhood) say that any of the societal changes, e.g., access to contraception and abortion, e.g., broad acceptance of women in the workplace, should be rolled back.
I never heard him or his wife say anything that might suggest that the opinion is anything other advice to women. (And when has Marx or Lenin ever said anything that can be interpreted as nothing more than advice to any individual -- other than the advice to join the collective effort to overthrow the capitalist class?)
Peterson is not shy about criticizing some of the pronouncement of feminists, e.g., "believe all women". He will point out that 1 or 2% of women are sociopaths just like 1 or 2% of men are sociopaths and that if you give sociopaths the opportunity to profit from lying, they will take the opportunity (and a depressingly large fraction of them will take the opportunity even if the only "profit" to be had is the pleasure of ruining someone's life or reputation).
Have you ever heard them criticize authoritarian conservatives who do believe womens' rights should be rolled back?
Or are they just not saying the quiet part out loud?
Intellectuals say should, which politicians and activists turn into must when people don't listen. That's usually the progression. Marx didn't say to put people into gulags. People were put into gulags when Marxism didn't work as expected. The ideology can't be wrong, so if people aren't doing it well enough they need "encouragement." If the square peg doesn't fit in the round hole, you have to use a hammer.
I'm pretty equal opportunity here. I am deeply skeptical and suspicious of anyone, right left or otherwise, who claims to have a proscriptive Grand Theory of how human beings ought to live. Such ideas usually end up having body counts.
BTW the fact that Peterson has women echoing and support his ideas doesn't mean much. There's plenty of men who subscribe to authoritarian ideologies that involve forcing other men to do things. It's no different.
I recall more than one time when he complained about the authoritarian impulse in bureaucrats and officials though none in which he complains about conservative officials specifically. He says that everyone must constantly exercise vigilance against this authoritarian impulse.
He complained that he is required (by his commitment to speak in front of audiences) to regularly go through airports because he gets icked out by the authoritarian vibe. He says he tries to stay at mom-and-pop hotels because hotels run by corporations give an authoritarian or at least bureaucratic vibe strong enough to ick him out sometimes.
> The stuff Jordan says about there being some value in the classics is good. Some of his stuff about meaning is good. Little to none of it is original.
I don't think he ever claimed that these ideas were original?
> He’s also a raving misogynist. I have two daughters. He can fuck right off with that shit.
I feel like this is quite an extraordinary accusation. The tone of your comment reminds me of his interview with Kathy Newman. Everything he said that had even the smallest nuance was twisted into something else. What specifically did he say that makes you thing he is a misogynist?
At a pre-protest meeting of a cause I wanted to support, I noticed that the organizer had on their desktop background a kind of propagandistic poster of Mao leading the cultural revolution. Keep in mind, this is in the USA. I'm no expert in world history by any means, but the level of ignorance is astounding.
As many others have pointed out there remain EB-1 visas and O category visas. In particular the O visas (for "extraordinary ability") are not subject to any nationality quotas. If these companies are serious about hiring the "smartest people", why would they not fall into these categories? Just for fun, here is an example of a teenager who recently got an O-1 visa as a software engineer [0]. Surely the folks applying to OpenAI, Nvidia, etc. would have similar qualifications?
You’re absolutely right! It only depends how disingenuous industry is when they say they need the smartest people. For the smartest people, a mere $100,000 is barely signing bonus territory. Meanwhile, despite O-visas being uncapped there’s only 35-40k per year being used… and on the greencard EB side those are maxed out, 140,000 authorized per year (260,000 were issued in 2021?).
Where are you getting this information from? EB-1/2/3 are clearly visas issued to people [0]. It is true that many people may adjust status to EB-1/2/3 while already in the US in another status, but they are certainly visas still available to people. As I understand, due to the quota system it can be very difficult for folks born in certain countries to receive them (due to quotas) and they end up waiting for many years.
I know this sounds crazy, but Wikipedia is completely wrong calling it a visa. It's a "visa classification", you still need an underlying visa to enter into the country.
Most O-1 Visa holders and some H1Bs get classified under EB-1, individuals with advanced degrees, experience get classified under EB-2 but hold H1-B / L1 visas, etc.
You can be under H1-B and not have a classification (no PERM).
If you don't believe me try to find an image of an actual EB-1/2/3 visa, I'll wait.
Source : Former F-1/H1B visa holder classified under EB-2, with over a decade of experience dealing with USCIS paperwork.
I am looking here [0] and I see that almost 20,000 O visas were issued at foreign posts in 2024, and it looks like several thousand E visas in the first priority category were issued. I agree with you that for most people, currently, the way it works is that they get an H1-B and then wait for their turn to apply for EB-1 (if they are from a country subject to quotas), but it is incorrect to say that consulates do not issues O or EB-1 visas. Why this is the case I have no idea, perhaps it is easier for companies to file for H1-B?
On the link above, there is a link to "Table VI (Part II) Preference Visas Issued Fiscal Year 2024". It is broken down by the consulate/embassy issuing the visa. The grand totals have about 5000, 10000, 16000 EB-1/2/3 visas issued globally, respectively. What am I misunderstanding?
EB-1/2/3 are employment based green card categories. And being employment based means that the applicants need to be employed in the US before being able to even apply. In most cases, the applicants are holding the H1-B visa while their EB-1/2/3 green card applications are ongoing.
From the EB-1 page on USCIS [0], under "Extraordinary Ability" category:
> You must be able to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics through sustained national or international acclaim.
> You must meet at least 3 of the 10 criteria* below, or provide evidence of a one-time achievement (i.e., Pulitzer, Oscar, Olympic Medal) as well as evidence showing that you will be continuing to work in the area of your expertise. No offer of employment or labor certification is required.
There is also a category for professors and researchers. In this category one must have an offer of employment. No labor certification is required.
> Those who are convicted of sleeping outdoors could be given the option to avoid jail time by instead entering into a mandatory treatment program for at least 12 months.
What happens if someone is homeless and not addicted to drugs or alcohol? Why assume everyone who is homeless is also an addict? It seems entirely reasonable that someone homeless AND addicted to drugs/alcohol should be required to enter into a treatment program.
reply