|
It's not a figure of speech. It's a very deliberate attempt at deeply mischaracterizing the position in an attempt to make it appear absurd. "Oh yeah, that's right, who would ever wake up one day and decide to be homeless? What an idiot who would think that!"
That's not how it works. You think you're being funny. You can't keep it together enough here to even genuinely engage. In case anyone else is reading, no, one exposure to Andrew Tate's toxicity is not what causes one to become misogynistic. It's an entire society and repeated exposure to his ideas, and ideas like his that cause it. It is not one exposure to a Tide advertisement that makes somebody sit down and say, "hey I should go buy Tide because of this advertisement!" Not like feeding them and giving them shelter. Remember, you don't want to give shelter. You, and your ilk, the vocal faction of SF politics, will accept nothing short of housing first. I obviously believe it is awful to be homeless. You say I straw manned you - tell me, am I wrong? Do you support anything short of housing first? If, say, the voting public doesn't want to give everyone 1000sqft in the heart of San Francisco, but is in favor of sheltering and forced drug rehabilitation and mental health facilities coupled with enforcing laws. You're telling me that you would not prefer the current state? My thoughts are your (presumed) preference of status que over a compromise that doesn't cause maximum suffering for all is the worst of all worlds. You're the "Bernie or Bust"er of the unhoused. You're the person who would rather have Trump than Biden, if you can't have Bernie. "Well, if I can't give everyone a free house in San Francisco, and change the distribution of wealth, I'd rather people suffer and die in the streets (via decriminalizing everything, and being anti-shelter), because then at least the taxpayers will also suffer the consequences of it, and then maybe things will change." |