I think the vast majority of homeless people are lost causes

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I don't think comparing them to inmates is completely unrelated though, especially when factoring in drug addiction. While they are disproportionately the victims of certain crimes and are a lot more vulnerable out on the streets, the flipside is that they also disproportionately commit crimes, particularly violent crime. There's also a significant chunk of the homeless population that are there after having previously been incarcerated.

You also have to consider the fact that people with certain mental disorders, like schizophrenia or bipolar type 1, are more likely than the general population to commit violent crimes. While they are also vulnerable and more likely to be victims themselves, we can't ignore the reality that they absolutely do commit more than their fair share of crime, especially when paired with drug use.

It is a difficult conversation because it can lead to the unfair stigmatization of the entire community, but it's foolish to write off the connection as a complete myth when we have hard data proving a link.

@TinyViolins Absolutely it is inappropriate. It only furthers the destructive stereotypes and nothing more.


And you admit in the same breath they are more likely to be the victims of crime.

And you claim they commit more crime. Citation needed for that whopper.



And again, the recidivism is by literal design. It has nothing to do with being homeless.



Umm no. The mentally ill are dis-proportionally the VICTIMS of violent crime. And you say that too. You speak out of both sides of your mouth.


All of this is Victorian "moral failings" lead to crime nonsense that has no basis in reality.


You are literally perpetrating the stigmatization and unfair stereotypes.


Again you claim your statements are backed by data and yet can provide non sources and the available data says the exact opposite.

Then again you contradict yourself so you can claim to be right no matter what the data says.

@TinyViolins And as for claims homeless people "commit more crime" well there are plenty of places where being homeless is criminalized so that is a goofy claim. The crimes most associated with homeless people beyond just existing is crimes of survival like property crime, squatting and theft,.

Whereas they are much more likely to be victims of violent crime from assault to murder.

Squatting in an abandoned building is hardly comparable to murder.

@TinyViolins Addiction is also a medical condition and what is a "drug" and what addictions are illegal are completely arbitrary so again that is mostly an excuse to perpetrate stereotypes and stigmas.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I think you're choosing to see only what you want to see. I explicitly stated in my original post that my argument is not empirical, and that's because statistics generalize an entire population and I don't want to generalize such a diverse population. I only wanted to focus on a specific segment of it. Most data doesn't properly disaggregate addicts and the severely mentally ill from the rest of the dataset.

But I will give you some data since you seem to be lacking yourself. 24% of homeless have a felony conviction as opposed to 8% of the general population. Felonies are typically for violent crimes.

In NYC, the homeless mentally ill are 35x more likely to commit a crime than the rest of the mentally ill. In LA, homeless are only 1% of the population, but accused in up to 8% of crime and 15% of violent crime. In San Diego, the homeless are 514x more likely to be charged with a crime than the rest of the population.

You can't just sweep this issue under the rug because you want to be empathetic. We also have to be realistic.

I already stated that they are disproportionately likely to be victims of crimes themselves, so we can both agree there. I will ask you this: who do you think are the people committing these crimes against them?

@TinyViolins Um no. You are doing that. You are starting from a Victorian era moral position and working backwards from those assumptions with no data to back anything.

And making generalizations about everything.


And great job saying the data is unreliable because you say so which makes it convenient that you now have an excuse to back nothing up.


Again you make assumptions. What is your source? 24% of homeless people have felonies? And sorry but no, felonies are absolutely not typically violent crime.

In fact in general the number of violent offenders is a tiny fraction of the entire inmate population.

Most felons are drug related offences which as I pointed out are related to completely arbitrary criminalization of addiction which is almost entirely vibes based and even often used to impose social engineering.

Case in point crack and powder cocaine are literally the same drug but one is used by poor people. 10 guesses which is punished more harshly.


Also we no that companies like GEO group which runs for profit prisons has been lobbying for years to have more random offences increased to felonies because it makes them literally billions.


Sorry but no shit. Literally anyone mentally ill or not are more likely to commit a crime when they are reduced to base survival.

Wagging fingers at the homeless is a privilege only available to people who have all their needs met.


And with things like this you are pretending all crimes are equal. That a felony for squatting is the same as attempted murder.



Most of the people committing acts of violence are people who make these kinds of arguments that you do that they are somehow morally "fallen" and demonize the entire population.

It is literally to the point that some states have hate crime enhancements for this.


You speak out both sides of your mouth on this issue.


And you also seem to have conveniently completely ignored that most of the mentally ill on the streets are combat vets that were discarded like so much trash with "thank you for your service" platitudes once or twice a years.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow
False. If you had bothered to actually read the post, which is very obvious now that you haven't, I explicitly state that this is based on the testimony of those who had worked with the homeless and those who experienced homelessness themselves, as well my own observations.

Again, you're seeing what you want to see


The data is unreliable in part because it's usually collected at the city, county, or state level. Different places have different laws, different levels of assistance, different costs of living, different strategies to combat drugs and homelessness.

Furthermore, a lot of homeless are not fixed in one location at all times. Gathering quality data on them is difficult because we don't even know whether the area they surveyed is a drug or crime hotspot.

You are married to this mindset that people's observations mean nothing without a clean convenient study done to support it. I just gave you statistics that had been gathered from various locations and you immediately dismiss them. Feel free to look up anything you don't believe is accurate. Google is your friend. I'm not here to provide you a complete bibliography.


Petty theft is not a felony. Neither is homelessness or loitering. We can focus solely on violent crime and the numbers are still higher among the drug-addicted and mentally ill homeless population. That's not something I'm making up for the sake of argument. Cities across the US have ample data on this.

And BTW, squatting is not a felony. Otherwise police would remove squatters every single time. It's usually a civil matter.


Where are you getting your information from that you think most violence is caused by those with moral superiority? Do you have any data to back that up?

For the record, I stated verbatim that these claims aren't made to demonize them. I don't know which part of your rear end you pulled this Victorian era morals argument from, because it certainly didn't come from anywhere in my post.


That is demonstrably false. Homeless vets only represent about 30,000-ish people. The overall homeless population is well over 700,000. Estimates of the mentally ill represent at the most conservative level is 1/3 of the homeless population, many estimates are at least twice that. Again, I have no idea where you get your information from, but it's not backed up at all by data

@TinyViolins It is not false. Your justifications don't change that.

And testimony?

Anecdotes are not data.


Actual data is not unreliable just because you claim it is. But it is convenient when your position is not supported by any available facts.


And based on your own criticism of the data collected that just proves that you cannot make the sweeping generalizations you are making.

First you claim your position is based on anecdotes and claim you provided statistics but you conveniently provided no sources for those supposed stats.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


And that is not how this works. You are the one making the claims the burden of proof is on you.


And as for vets I am talking about people with mental illness that are likely to provoke violent responses. Whereas you seem to want to lump everyone together from mild depression to violent outburts.

When you dig down to the percentage of the mentally ill that are actually suffering from something that can potentially turn violent the percentages drop considerably just like in the general population.

It is not unreasonable to extrapolate from there the percentage that were trained to respond to threats with violent and even deadly force and the demographic gets even smaller.

My point is when you break people like that there is a duty of care.

The reality is we have examples around the world how for the majority of the homeless all it takes is a roof over their heads, some money, and basic levels of care.

This is not some mystery.

But ultimately this is not going to be solved because we have an economic system dependent on maintaining the status quo.

It is a feature, not a bug.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow
I minored in statistics in college. I doubt you ever took a class in it. Data is unreliable all the time, in large part to sampling errors and methodology. A lot of the studies I looked at are based on self-reports rather than formal diagnoses, which is a truly terrible way of measuring rates of mental illness.

Haven't you ever heard the saying "lies, damn lies, and statistics"? Even the studies themselves admit that there is a lack of quality data because the people conducting them are measuring different things at different times, and different groups often don't share their data with each other. There's no universal standard between any of these studies.

I don't know where you got this assumption that there is good, reliable, comprehensive data out there regarding homelessness, but it's completely ignorant of the reality of the situation. Different studies are measuring different things in different cities and states at different periods of time with different sample sizes. Some are measuring different subsets of the homeless population. It's literally impossible to provide you one single number on one single claim because different localities have different results.


If different data sets all suggest the same thing, then you can reasonably make a sweeping generalization. If 97% of peer reviewed papers on climate change all suggest that it is man-made, then it's reasonable to generalize that scientists support the theory of man-made climate change. Are you really gonna be the guy that says "well, some scientists don't" in order to cast doubt on the phenomena?

Stop being obtuse for a second and realize that this is not an academic forum. It's beyond moronic to expect people to provide you a litany of sources to show how many of them are all saying the same thing. It's not my job to convince you of anything. If you're ever in doubt of any claims, a quick Google search will either confirm or deny your suspicions. Badgering me to placate your biases is such a willfully ignorant way to avoid critical thinking.

If you ever leave your cozy little suburb to drive by a homeless population at any time, as I do on a daily basis, you would realize just as anyone else would that it's not an extraordinary claim to suggest that most homeless are mentally ill or abusing substances. It's reality. You're deliberately choosing to ignore it because you think protecting people's feelings is more important than telling the truth.


I specifically mentioned schizophrenia and bipolar type 1 in my first reply to you. Again, you only see what you want to see.


Where do you get those statistics? What is the exact percentage of those mentally ill homeless that can potentially turn violent?


The only success stories are Finland and Japan. Both had very low rates of homelessness to begin with, and with Japan there is proof that governments aren't fixing homelessness, just making it less visible.

With Finland, addiction and mental health therapy were core components of their strategy to fix it. Furthermore, they only have about a few thousand homeless people, the vast majority of whom were living with friends or relatives. Only a few hundred were unsheltered. The US has well over 700,000, with around 40% of those living on the streets.

Edit: I just looked it up and the homelessness rate increased in Finland last year. The number of people living outside or in shelters rose 50% compared to the previous year, with rising numbers reported in every city except one. Guess no one can actually solve the issue

Let's get serious here and realize just how much more complex the situation is. It's not just about housing and money

@TinyViolins Starting off with an appeal to authority fallacy? This is not off to a great start.


And if that is true why have you been pretending that anecdotes are substitutes for facts and statistics? Based on your education you of all people should know better.


Where did I get the idea that there is good data about homelessness? This is not a uniquely American issue and has been studied across the globe for literally longer than both of us have been alive.



And now you are using actual science to justify your generalizations you previously said were largely based on anecdotes and opinions.


Climate science is actually science backed by actual peer reviewed data. Pretending this is comparable doesn't help your argument.



The only person making sweeping generalizations from an ivory tower here is you.

And it is absolutely an extraordinary claim that you cannot back up.

And again your personal anecdotes are not data. Again if your education claims are true you should know better.




Lol. And you looked at a since point of data on homelessness in Finland and make a claim based on nothing that data for a single year is a trend.


Again, it seems like you threw out everything your education should have taught you.


This is the same nonsense right wingers use for "tough on crime" arguments. Find a single year where crime goes up and pretend it negates a 30 year trend because your argument requires it.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow
Well, every single time I've pressed you to back up your information or statistics, you completely move on to another point. The reason? There is none. Your only source is your vague ideas of how the world works from the comfort of your four walls. You prove as much because you have this blind faith that somewhere out there in the world some amazing team of brilliant researchers all banded together to finally solve the mystery of homelessness with their awesome study design and survey skills.

If you had actually bothered to employ the slightest degree of critical thinking, you would have tried to look some of these claims and realize that these studies have figures all over the board when it comes to homelessness, mental illness, substance abuse, and criminal activity.

If you knew anything at all about statistics, you'd dig a little deeper and realize that all these studies have certain flaws in their designs that make them relatively low quality. Some rely strictly on self-reporting whereas others get formal diagnoses. The ones that do have formal diagnoses have small sample sizes which have higher probabilities of error. The ones that have larger sample sizes don't disaggregate their data with regards to specific mental illnesses or substances. The studies that do delve into specific mental illnesses or substances rarely capture their relationship to crime. The studies that do focus on crime statistics are limited to specific metropolitan areas. The studies that look at national or state level data typically focus on policy changes. Some studies have a longitudinal time frame. Some are done in the course of a few days or weeks. Some rely on court and police/prison data. Some studies are done by non-profits, some by universities, others done by local governments, and others still done by federal agencies. Few of them are sharing or comparing data. They all have different motives, different objectives, and different methodologies.

Your fairy tale idea of some all-encompassing super study having surely been done because it's been studied for a long time is completely divorced from reality. If such a study is out there, I implore you to share it with me. Because it doesn't turn up in any of my search results.

And for the record, I never claimed that anecdotes are substitutes for statistics. The testimonies that I've gathered align with much of the research I've looked at. The reason I didn't cite statistics is because they generalize the problem and the population. Statistics boil people down to averages.

The reality is that homelessness is a complex topic with a wide range of contributing factors. A statistical study of that nature would take thousands and thousands of accurate data points. The reality is that a lot of mental illness out there is undiagnosed, and a lot of illegal drug addiction is underreported. There's no way to definitively test and diagnose and properly vet that many people for the sake of the study. So I chose to rely on first-hand accounts in order to get a more reliable, more nuanced, and more detailed assessment of what is going on with homelessness in America. You just want a goddamn number.


But if you somehow managed to overcome your intellectual laziness to go and look at a study, you'd find a whole host of them that citing mental illness and substance abuse as the most significant segment of the chronically homeless. Studies done at the city and county level all have positive correlations between homelessness and felonies. Other studies on violent prison inmates all show positive correlations between mental illness and homelessness. The reason I don't cite those is because each of these studies were measuring different, albeit related, crime figures and correlations. The data is not as neat and tidy as your simple little brain would like it to be.


I actually was homeless for almost a year of my life. I have homeless people in my family. They all have mental health or addiction problems. I pass by homeless encampments every day on my way to and from work. My girlfriend had her life threatened by a homeless person. Her brother and several cousins are homeless. Guess what the reasons are. My next door neighbor was bitten by a homeless person a few months ago because she wouldn't give them money. Her kids had their bike stolen by a homeless person last year. Those kids can't even wander past their driveway because of the fear of homeless people. My girlfriend's dad had his truck set on fire by a homeless person. I walk by smashed car windows everyday more than likely coming from the nearby homeless encampment. There's a homeless person at the bus stop nearest to my house that's always shouting at and trying to fight people. I can't walk my dog on certain streets because homeless people are out doing drugs and high as a kite. I see drug deals practically every day at the homeless encampment. Can you claim to have anywhere near that amount of experience with homelessness?

You keep looking for some nice neat little statistic to mull over while ignoring the fact that me and my neighbors have to live with this day in and day out. Acting like our experiences don't matter at all because no statistician bothered to make a data point of it.


Finland was literally the only country that could come close to your BS claim that other places in the world figured out how to treat homelessness, and last years data proves that it couldn't even do that properly. Homeless rose in virtually every major city there. It goes to prove that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You just want everybody to look at you like you're an ally, when really you're just blindly denying whatever doesn't align with your airy-fairy narratives

@TinyViolins A whole lot of projection here and you are the one making extraordinary claims with no evidence. The burden of proof is on you. This is high school level debate stuff.


Your entire argument is based on giving anecdotes equal weight to peer reviewed studies and statistical data. That is what your entire argument is based on.


And your "testimonies" are anecdotes.

Um no. Statistics and data are how you determine course of action based on facts and evidence, not person anecdotes and opinions.


Another fallacy is that your single personal experience makes you an expert on an issue that affects hundreds of thousands and make recommendations based on your experience.


For someone who claims to have studied statistics you have thrown away everything you would have learned and it is not based on critical thinking.

You call me intellectually lazy and yet you cite your education and then make flawed arguments that you more than anyone with y our claimed education should know better.


This is on the level of assuming correlation is causation.



And again, with Finland a single data point can not prove or disprove anything about a trend.


I get the sense that because you have an emotional attachment to this you knowingly dismiss everything you would have learned and just make vibes based recommendations based on your own experiences and then work backwards claiming there is evidence to back it.

@TinyViolins Again. You are the one making wild claims. The burden of proof to support your claims is you.

And you have said yourself the only "evidence" you have is anecdotes and opinions.

You gave excuses for why you can't back up any of your claims with anything based on facts or data.

And you are the one who pretended your anecdotes were equivalent to peer reviewed science with your climate science nonsense, not me.


Yes, the opinion of some random people you know are by definition anecdotes.

Multiple anecdotes are not data. If you are being honest about your education you know better.


And an appeal to authority fallacy also doesn't change that.



You claim to know my education and yet directly throw out all the basic methodology of your claimed education.


And "trust me bro, I am an expert" doesn't change that.



As for Finland. You said it was data from a single year. That is absolutely not indicative of anything in either direction and yes a single data point.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow
You're the only one claiming that my claims are wild. What proof do you have to support your claim of mine being wild?


Prove it. I never said that. I said I didn't have much of empirical based argument and that my post is based mostly on direct eye-witness testimonies. Nowhere did I say I was using only opinions and anecdotes. Those are different concepts that don't mean what you think they mean.


I never said I couldn't back up my claims. I did provide you some with regards to crime that you chose to conveniently ignore. I said that the studies were unreliable because they're all measuring different things for different localities. It's like pieces of the puzzle. I'm not going to give you one and say it perfectly represents the whole. By looking a wide range of studies, I can piece together enough to verify that the conclusions align more or less with my observations and those with direct experience.

It's not an excuse, it's the result of having so much variety with data gathering and methodologies. I literally can't cherry pick a study and tell you this is the best one that tells you everything you need to know.


The climate change consensus was an analogy. It's a rhetorical device meant to show that you can make generalizations if multiple different studies all suggest the same thing. It was never meant to be literal, but now I bet now you're expecting me to provide you with a study demonstrating the effectiveness of using an analogy in an argument to justify me saying that.


Seriously, you need to look up the definition of the word 'anecdote'.

And these aren't just random people I know. They're people on the internet talking about their lived experiences being homeless or working directly with them in providing assistance, shelter, or working in soup kitchens. They're testimonies. You should probably look that word up too.


It doesn't take an expert to realize you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Oh, and great job dodging my questions once again. Seems you can't back up anything when pressed to do so.


Okay, you need to look up the definition of 'data point' as well. I literally told you twice already that almost every city (I hope you're at least smart enough to realize there's more than one city in Finland) reported increases in homelessness last year. Those are multiple data points. The combined total of all those data points at the end of the year is the aggregate within that data set.

If you were to make a trend line, which I specifically said I wasn't, then the aggregate would comprise a new data point in a different data set comprising of every previous year. But again, I told you directly that I wasn't doing that. I brought last year's data up solely to dispute your completely made up claim of homelessness having been solved.