[macspoofing]

>The theory is that if people like you are forced to see the homeless you’ll be more willing to fund helping them.

Whose theory is this?

Also, why do you think fighting homelessness is just a function of funding? What if activists and the solutions they propose actually exacerbate the problem.

[Consultant32452]

I wasn’t suggesting the theory works. I was pointing out the discomfort is intended.

[aksss]

The problem with the theory is that the people who have a choice to avoid it just move out. The wealthy who stay can live behind gates and walls with paid protection. The people who promote these theories live in such a disconnected reality, relearning basic lessons in ways that cost societies as a whole and tragically create even more inequality and inequity than was present when they started. Now you preside over a piss-stained, violent[0] city with an eroding tax base and a widening chasm between the haves and the have-nots. Congrats.

[0] I tend to agree with another poster that the threat of violence is still violent even if the victim acquiesces to avoid violence (by not confronting, fighting back, intervening, either from direct threat of retaliation by criminal or punishment from state/society for daring to be intolerant of antisocial behavior).

[Consultant32452]

It feels like you think you’re disagreeing with me but I agree with everything you wrote.

[aksss]

Nope, don't disagree with you (I don't think), just adding more color the idiocy of the "theory".

[Consultant32452]

Not idiocy. Evil. Your safety and comfort are reasonable sacrifices to these cretins.

They know exactly what they are doing, who it impacts, and who it doesn’t.