[kidrockskid]

You are ignoring some obvious points that the other person made in your comment, and I literally made an account to respond because it is a bit annoying, because none of your points follow anything. I'll point these out (I'll also point out where I have no issues with your arguments to be fair):

> but your general claim seems to be that because San Francisco is not successful... it is not progressive

No, the person clearly said the measures were *half measures* and that's the problem with them. And they did give a *specific* example about someone stealing and not being prosecuted for it, but social services/etc. not following up to see why someone may be stealing. You might disagree and argue that not prosecuting people for non-violent crimes (so they don't get permanent records that might affect their employment, housing opportunities etc. forever) should be enough, but it's a bad faith argument to say that the previous commenter simply thinks SF is not progressive because their progressive policies aren't successful. Your logic doesn't follow.

> And cause they have empty houses?

No, because they have empty houses and skyrocketing housing/rent prices and have so much homelessness at the same time.

> Comparing to to sovereign nations that have the full autonomy of the state to enact their policies (Norway, Singapore, Japan) makes no sense.

If it doesn't (your assumption seems to be that a city doesn't have enough political power to enact certain legislation/measures), then you are proving the point you are replying to: that these measures SF has, no matter how progressive they look, can only be half-measures. It doesn't matter what the intentions of people enacting them are, by your reasons (if, again, we take your assumption that SF doesn't have enough political autonomy to do much) can only be milquetoast half measures.

> open air drug markets have been allowed to operate with impunity, drug laws are generally not enforced

ok sure, you kind of have a point. Obviously there are a ton of stuff to be said, but I'll let you have it.

> harm reduction programs for drug addicts, here's a list of needle exchange places in San Francisco for example

Obvious straw man. By definition, these programs try to reduce things like HIV among people who use drugs. If you provided data that showed incidence of HIV increasing among homeless and drug using populations after needle exchanges were introduced, that would be one thing. What does this program have anything to do with anything about the root issues behind homelessness/drug addiction?

> they do provide low cost, and even free, housing for homeless people, addicts etc. I'm not going to link this for you but it's easy to find

No they don't, and you can't link it because it doesn't exist! And no, shelters don't count. If you research a little bit, you will see that a lot of homeless don't like shelters because the communal living situation makes them vulnerable to many other sorts of threats. Long-term, affordable, adequate housing. Find me the link for that.

> they have long been a sanctuary city and do not aid in enforcement of the immigration policies of the federal government

Again, nothing to do with the main point, unless the perpetrator was an undocumented immigrant (and even then, N=1, so what is your point?).

> here is their universal healthcare - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_San_Francisco it's been around for 15 years

Ok, this is good, you take this.

Anyways, you might disagree, but don't just ignore actual points made.

[komali2]

Thank you for taking some of the burden there, the entire thread is infuriating because I simply can't get good, data-based positions from those that are here to cry for the blood of those they label criminals.

Regarding Healthy San Francisco, it's certainly an incredible program and a fantastic way for a city to try to address the clown show that is the American healthcare system, but it's not universal healthcare. It's missing the universal. You can be someone whose life would be dramatically improved by universal healthcare (aka a person one surgery away from bankruptcy aka the majority of Americans) and be ineligible for Healthy San Francisco.

I will however grant that it is likely the most progressive policy in the city. Even still it falls short of the most basic standards of human rights by other industrialized nations (that being access to healthcare).

[hashmap]

You both did a much better job answering those points than I was prepared to do, that was really nice to see.

> I simply can't get good, data-based positions from those that are here to cry for the blood of those they label criminals.

That's the nature of it, unfortunately. The people who freak out the most about murder are the most excited to call for additional murder, and the mental gymnastics needed to resolve that cognitive dissonance means you're not going to get a good faith argument. They don't even necessarily believe what they're saying in many cases, it's just lashing out after getting riled up thinking they're being targeted somehow. There seems to be a lot of that here in this thread especially, since the victim was a techie.

I try to remind myself that it's not about convincing the person you're responding to, it's about reaching who else might be reading.

[komali2]

It's honestly a relief to see others share my feelings on the subject. Normally when I get deep in with conservative arguments like this, I can lie to myself that probably most of the people are bots, but here that's almost certainly not the case. So, I was getting super depressed at how much "work" there is to do for implementing evidence-based judicial processes (let alone in convincing people that homeless people aren't subhuman trash), because here we have a thread of thousands of likely rich techies, ostensibly relatively well educated people, all ignoring evidence and baying for blood while engaging in outright fallacy.

I mean, check out how much the comments calling for level heads, or simply linking to contradicting evidence, are getting downvoted. It's wild, and disappointing. These are supposed to be some pretty smart people on this forum.

[kareemsabri]

Yeah, I disagree. It's basically the standard leftist argument that "no true leftist" goes far enough. Saying they are "half measures" doesn't mean they aren't progressive half-measures. I'm sure the OP would seize and the means of production and eat the rich or whatever but that's not what progressive means.

I dunno what your N=1 point is supposed to mean. Being a sanctuary city is a progressive policy. And calling needle exchange a straw man is odd. How is it a straw man? A straw man means I'm setting up a fake version of my opponent's argument and arguing with that. It's an example of a progressive policy that exists. You seem to be saying it's not progressive because it doesn't solve the root causes. So the only cities that get to be considered progressive have to SOLVE drug addiction? I don't buy into that definition of progressivism. A harm-reduction drug program is a hallmark of progressive cities all over the world.

Here is SF's free and subsidized housing policy. It does exist. https://hsh.sfgov.org/services/the-homelessness-response-sys...

They have 12,000 units. You as a resident will pay between $25 per month and up to 30% of your income (if you have one). I don't believe any of these are shelters. You confidently claim something doesn't exist that a two second google search brings up. Private residence, long-term, extremely subsidized housing does exist in San Francisco. I'm not saying it's adequate, perfect, or solves the homeless problem, but it exists.

My points follow a simple premise. I think SF has sufficient policies to be considered a "progressive" city, and I gave examples of progressive policies. I am not going to do the HN thing where you go back and forth snip-quoting each other's points, that misses the forest for the trees. But if SF is not progressive, then no city in North America is.

[kidrockskid]

> You seem to be saying it's not progressive because it doesn't solve the root causes. So the only cities that get to be considered progressive have to SOLVE drug addiction?

No, I am not saying that policy is not progressive, I am saying that that particular policy is irrelevant to housing/homelessness itself. Electric car mandates can be considered progressive. It doesn't mean anything for homelessness. It is a strawman, because needle exchange programs don't claim to reduce addiction, not to mention homelessness. They claim to reduce harm from addiction. By your logic, why not list every single progressive policy that SF has? I am sure SF has a lot of bike lanes, which is also a hallmark of progressive cities. Why didn't you bring that up? There is a drag queen ban in Tennessee for example. By your definition, not banning drag queens is progressive, so that could be a policy you could list.

It is a strawman, because a) you brought it up because it is tangentially related to homelessness and addiction so it "feels" relevant b) it is something that you can use to construct your premise that SF can be considered a progressive city (which sure why not) and c) nobody is arguing with you about if SF is progressive by common definition or if a particular policy is progressive. The argument is that these policies don't try (not solve, not be successful, just try/address) the root causes of homelessness, and are thus half measures, so it doesn't matter what other progressive policies the city has. This is not an argument about semantics.

The broader argument that the person you were responding to (I don't want to speak for them, but just my interpretation) is that these policies are just there to give the appearance of progressiveness without doing anything to change the material conditions, on which I agree. And you don't need to go that far and seize anything, just give universal healthcare and a better social safety net like most EU member countries and that would suffice for now. It is not a binary choice here.

> Here is SF's free and subsidized housing policy. It does exist. https://hsh.sfgov.org/services/the-homelessness-response-sys...

I stand corrected. You are right. But you do say yourself that it is not enough and solves the problem, just exists. And before you say "well does it have to be enough to be progressive", no, that's not what I am saying. This is a progressive policy. But it doesn't change the material reality that housing prices are skyrocketing and clearly there aren't enough of these units to house everyone that is on the streets. So let's assume there is a sudden change of heart and everyone in bay area starts voting conservative. These two policies being the progressive policies they are, are rolled back. Besides straight up throwing people in the jail for being homeless (which, coincidentally, Tennessee just passed a law for), how would the roll-back of these two policies change the situation in SF for the better? I'll tell you: it wouldn't. It would a) cause more harm by spreading blood-borne diseases among the addicted population b) increase the number of homeless people.

Your points don't follow a simple premise. Your flow of thought seems to be:

SF has progressive policies that are, while not enough, and some of which are not even related to the issue at hand, progressive -> SF is a progressive city -> SF has homelessness -> SF is a failed city because it is progressive -> Progressive cities = bad because SF is progressive and homelessness isn't solved, so progressive policies can't solve homelessness. -> progressive policies broadly = bad

But this is just playing with semantics. The OP's point is that these policies are there to give an appearance of being progressive. It is not the standard argument to anything. It just doesn't solve the problem, that's it. Let's assume the OP and I want to be considered a different category called progressive+, the policy definition of which is anything that fully tries to solve a given social problem like homelessness. If we think that progressive policies, which is a strict subset of progressive+ policies, don't try to solve the problem, then we are done. That's it. Notice that they are a subset of policies of progressive+, so they give a semblance of it, but they are not progressive+. If the OP believes that unless you try policies in progessive+, you are doomed to fail, then your argument doesn't make sense, because it doesn't matter what direction the half measures are, because they don't try to address the problem. Being half-measures, they try to give the appearance of a sincere effort.

On the other hand, let's do a thought experiment. If every big city in every red state where it is mandatory to drive the biggest most polluting cars possible and it is a crime to now own a gun or whatever, and using alcoholic mouthwash is considered drinking, and anybody that speaks Spanish needs to report for a daily check in with customs (for reasons longer than we should get into, cities don't tend to vote for conservatives usually) decide to provide permanent adequate housing and healthcare to every resident in their state. That's a great policy, and while I would have a lot of other issues with such a state/city, I would really like that policy. That policy would be in the subset of policies that progressive+ policies have that the progressive subset doesn't. You are playing with semantics, because I don't care if a particular city is considered progressive or not. A city's reputation is irrelevant. The other policies (while draconian in this example) are not relevant.