Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Trump's latest lunacy
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 14:19:09 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <vrvrnj$nvhl$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrh8vj$3e213$1@dont-email.me> <vrq8i5$3jj5h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrrue2$14m8d$1@dont-email.me> <jf73ujl736svq8led49v2i6isrjn3mib38@4ax.com>
 <67e2c231$15$5281$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <vruhqn$3jbt5$1@dont-email.me>
 <67e2d5f0$0$5280$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <vruolf$3ofdd$1@dont-email.me>
 <67e2fdf6$9$5277$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <vrv33k$24hv$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 04:19:16 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa02956ec9699b0029688869a548b046";
	logging-data="785973"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19t0E0zRNdxTNcK7SqagkyzObtoh+7LDa0="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fjpj6tgPp8vpNPkH3Oh7RujuYZk=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250325-18, 26/3/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vrv33k$24hv$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6478

On 26/03/2025 7:18 am, Don Y wrote:
> On 3/25/2025 12:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>> So just build houses for the homeless and then they won't be 
>>>>>> homeless anymore, 
>>>>>
>>>>> No.  There will *still* be homeless people, regardless of the level of
>>>>> support that you provide.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, there are no perfect solutions. So what.
>>>
>>> *Expecting* it to be solvable by "mere handwaving" is naive.
>>> Like the example I gave of the organization, here, that hands
>>> *checks* to homeless youth.
>>>
>>> All THAT does is enable them to engage in the same behaviors
>>> that have kept them from "settling down" and overcoming their
>>> current issues.
>>
>> Treating adults like naughty grade school children and trying to 
>> modify their behaviors using the methods parents (sometimes with some 
>> success, at least at that stage of development) use to modify the 
>> behaviors of their naughty schoolchildren tends to be ineffective, 
>> what a lot of them needed was tough love at age 8 rather than the 
>> capricious and dysfunctional parents they actually got.
> 
> That ignores the problem.  You have to understand the problem
> before you can propose/develop a solution for it.  Otherwise,
> you are just throwing money and effort at it and "hoping for the best"
> 
>> But the state's usual fashion of tough love tends to get to most of 
>> these citizens far too late.
> 
> The State doesn't have the patience to deal with these problems.
> Why should the state have to fix the results of poor parenting,
> poor environment, etc.?
> 
> If it *should*, then THAT has to become a priority.  Otherwise,
> The State does what is most expedient (which may not be best nor
> cheapest -- politicians tend not to worry about details...)
> 
>> My folks were more dysfunctional and capricious than many but not as 
>> bad as some and I had some other more positive influences, so I got a 
>> fighting chance. Other members of "the wrong crowd" I knew back in the 
>> day didn't get as fighting a chance and I visit their graves sometimes.
>>
>>> Many also suffer from mental illnesses.  Neither "problem" has quick,
>>> easy cures.  Throwing staff and money at it isn't likely going to
>>> achieve any positive results -- except for the exceptional cases
>>> that manage to pull their shit together AND leave the lifestyle
>>> that had *put* them in that situation.
>>>
>>> Going back to "the same old crowd" (of friends) is likely going to put
>>> them back where they started (on their failed trajectory).
>>
>> Yes, the "exceptional cases" are indeed who you're working for, but I 
>> don't think they're quite as uncommon as you seem to be making them 
>> out to be.
> 
> Everyone wants their donations (which are manifestations of working hours
> out of their earlier lives) to be used effectively.  It's rare that someone
> will willingly make a large donation (time or money) in the HOPE of some
> positive result -- absent any real guarantees!

Dealing with other people's problems doesn't offer the option of 
guaranteed results. Everybody is different (even identical twins).

>> Part of the point of "throwing stuff and money" is because you have to 
>> show someone love and trust who's likely never experienced it _at all_ 
>> before you show them tough love or it just seems like more punishment, 
>> not a particularly effective method of enticing anyone back into society.
> 
> We have a significant homelessness problem.  In part, because our
> climate is more tolerant of living out-of-doors (I knew a guy who
> lived in a TENT in his mom's back yard -- she forbid him in the
> house; long story).  Part because we have a fair bit of "free"
> services (e.g., one can ride public transportation "for free"
> instead of relying on someone to transport you -- undoubtedly for
> a "cut" of your take -- to your "panhandling intersection").
> And, because the police tend to be a bit more tolerant than in
> other locales.
> 
> If someone sets up a tent on the "wild" side of our back fence,
> should I just "feel sorry for him"?  Run over and give him some cash?
> Invite him to dinner?  Will ANY of these things actually make a
> difference -- or, just encourage others to come by for their share?

It might be wise to find out enough about him to get into a state where 
you can see what might work for him. Different individuals have 
different problems and different capabilities. They also pose different 
kinds of threats. Finding out a bit about them, as individuals, is a 
wise precaution, as well as the charitable approach.

> These problems are larger than "individuals".  And, tend to require
> more expertise than "well meaning groups" have available.

The problem is always the individual. Lumping people together and trying 
to apply a one-size-fits-all solution is a reliable route to disaster.
<snip>

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney