[ubertoop]

I'm really confused as to what point you're trying to make with this comment.

In order to secure religious freedoms, religious rights, and LGBTQ inclusion, we need to have a filthy city, filled with homelessness, drug addiction, and absurd policies?

[defaultname]

His/her comment was clearly in regards to Poland taking a pretty stark curve to the right. Which also has absolutely nothing to do with the benefits the person above mentioned, just as it isn't a "distraction" in San Francisco (what a ridiculous canard that should be pounded down into transparency).

Loads of places have all of those freedoms and inclusions, but also have little to no homelessness, crime, or police brutality. It is a complete non-sequitur.

San Francisco has loads of problems. A serious housing problem. A wealth disparity problem. An "activist" police force that is basically fundamentally incompetent and incapable of doing even a modicum of their job, intentionally trying to burn the city to the ground to make some right wing point. Mental health issues.

It isn't because they are inclusive or considerate.

[dehrmann]

> It is a complete non-sequitur.

I disagree because of the hierarchy of needs. Having LGBTQ rights is great, but safety and security comes before that.

[pmalynin]

Not at all, merely that every locale has its skeletons.