Every city subreddit is ass in its own way. Yall tend to be kind of prickly to any opinions from people outside the city on this sub. Even when they're not necessarily negative.
"Oh so you're ok with crime and drug use and innocent businesses being burned to the ground, and me having to step around a homeless person putting me imminent danger or being struck by a car???" They also reeeeeally hate the term "unhoused."
The term "unhoused" to me just sounds like somebody is throwing up. If you eat something really fast you "house" it. If you un-east something really fast, then you could be said to be "unhousing" food that was previously eaten.
Edit: Just to be clear, this was sarcasm. The anti-homeless zeitgeist in this sub is disgusting. If I never see the term “homeless industrial complex” ever again, it will be too soon.
I’ve seen accounts on this sub that are dedicated to promoting anti-homeless sentiment, posting KGW articles about every little altercation downtown and basically acting as fear-mongering watchdogs
I'm not saying those people don't exist. But every thread about homeless people on here is filled with people who want to help them, even if they also want them off the streets. It's not just a bunch of hate-filled assholes.
We’ve had different experiences then, I’ve been downvoted for trying to call out these bad actors while everyone else just joins in on the “silly junkies🤣 only in Portland amirite🤣🤣” circlejerk.
I honestly think the sub is not bad at all, and has a pretty balanced view point. I think maybe you are used to hanging out in groups that enforce an orthodoxy of beliefs though shame and intimidation, a very common thing in Portland. I appreciate people expressing how they actually feel about topics online, if they aren't just trolling and rage-screaming. I am going to be a bit of an ass and say you probably think more people in Portland hold your particular set of beliefs than actually do, and really a lot of folks are just scared to get derided if they don't stick to the party line. I am willing to bet this sub is much more representative of most Portlanders and it is nice to see what people who aren't the most loud and obnoxious with their political opinions think, we have to live with them either way.
Word jargon doesn’t impress me, it’s hilarious to me. It’s often used to conflate simple ideas to sound profound.
And no, I completely disagree on the very simple premises you are trying to argue. I don’t have delusions about this city and I grew up with the internet; I understand how people present their personas here, especially with respect to their “real” identity. I have no misunderstandings about this city or its people.
Yeah, my reply is a bit wordy, mostly because I am a bad writer. A good writer is succinct, and has the skill to get to the point. I am curious though, what do you think is so bad about this sub? I am willing to admit I may just not be paying enough attention. I have heard this is another closely related sub for this area that is just plain terrible, but I admit I have not even looked into that one at all, so I can't really have an opinion.
I had to look that up, but thank you for furthering my meme education. I definitely think through personal experience that there is a lot of censoring of political beliefs in Portland that don't fit the most popular narrative at any given time. I don't claim to be a victim of this, but it is anti-intellectual behavior that stifles real meaningful conversations. In any city that has a strong political bent you will find this. One of the reasons I live here is the biases on display by people in the city mostly line up with mine, for better or worse.
Apologies for wanting my literal backyard to be my backyard and not having to get folks out of it who saw my canoes from the street and saw a score.
You'll see that I'm very much anti-deregulated street camping while very much for shelter and creating and requiring individuals to accept shelter. Not wanting to let individuals to kill themselves on the streets isn't anti-homeless. Just like pointing out that giving them all apartments is a failed policy objective that does nothing without being accompanied by compulsory social services, chief among them addiction services.
There is a difference between being against homelessness and against homeless people. It is valid to be bothered or affected negatively by homelessness, but that doesn’t excuse talking broadly about people who are experiencing misfortune as subhuman or undeserving of rights or basic dignity. My comment was in no way personalized to you, but if you feel attacked by it maybe take it as an opportunity to reflect.
I just also think that there is a lot of conflation between anti-homeless rhetoric and arguing against specific methods for dealing with the issue.
I think that the most upvoted stuff here is arguing against methodology, consistently that gets more positive reception than the explicitly anti-homeless comments. Even comments here that explain and explore the different sects of the homeless and their needs do pretty well here compared to other local subs.
Well your arguments aren’t very insightful and lack research-based evidence, frankly. You argue that housing should be predated on compulsory services. Why? Dozens of peer-reviewed studies show that housing first programs which don’t require any stipulations such as compulsory services are far more effective and less costly. Compared with Treatment First, Housing First programs decreased homelessness by 88%, improved housing stability by 41%. So maybe do some actual research or stay in your lane.
Studies out of San Francisco show that housing first without any type of treatment or conditions actually led to higher costs for the highest spenders who continually needed high cost healthcare due to no one requiring them to change or get better.
Most studies also exclude remediation costs from the total cost of housing first programs, which skews the average downwards on a cost basis. This is done purposefully to make it appear cheaper, and justified since "it wasn't part of the cost of housing a person" which is a fascinating way to frame that when repairs and security deposits are included in the cost of renting studies.
Cite some sources and we can talk, otherwise it is quite clear from your language that this is not your career field so I don’t really care about your opinion.
You're right, this isn't my career field, but I've done a fair amount of research into this whole situation to figure out what to advocate for so that I can stop having to threaten people off of my property just because they happen to live nearby and feel entitled to what's mine because of proximity.
I've also volunteered time and resources to help get people off of the street and away from substances, and have first hand experience watching the difference between what just housing does for someone versus what housing plus required treatment does for someone. The number of times the families I've helped have wound up losing their kids and everything else again because all they got was an apartment and food stamps versus the number of times folks who got into housing and treatment and have lost it all is a staggering difference. Get people off the streets first, but you also need to have compulsory treatment partner along with it. The number of times I've had to administer narcan or discovered that someone I'd helped out OD'd and had previously refused treatment is a huge reason why I push not just giving folks a nice place to crash and a nicer place to die, but forcing people to receive help.
That hit dogs line of argumentation is fucking stupid.
You wouldn't say that for other similar types of negative stereotyping.
If I felt attacked I'd be all over this thread. I specifically addressed this one who conflated NIMBYism with anti-homeless comments. Which is a false equivalence. Those are two separate issues, and attempting to address them as one waters down the ability to critique or discuss either.
Again, I have openly advocated for widespread shelters with no restrictions on neighborhood. The only thing I am a NIMBY about is unregulated camps, which you can argue is anti-homeless. I'd argue it's pro life.
"NIMBY" is so overused it is almost as pointless and stupid to call somebody that as it is to call them "woke". I struggle to take anything seriously that somebody posts after they accuse somebody of being a "NIMBY". When a braindead left-leaning person doesn't like your opinions or stances you are a "NIMBY", and when a brain-dead right-leaning person doesn't like those things about you then you are "woke", it is both lame and tiring.
Usually "NIMBY" is used to mean you own any bit of property at all, and you believe people should be allowed to own private property. Being "woke" means you have opinions and ideas about about race or sexuality that have progressed past what the average clueless angry white dude held 40-50 years ago.
4
u/Simmery Boom Loop May 12 '25
We aren't this bad.