So like, caucuses seem dumb in almost every way. What's the argument for a caucus, out of curiosity?
some people see value in the idea of a community coming together to discuss how they wish to be governed
I think that's probably the most charitable argument
personally I think that they'd probably be fine if we could also guarantee that everyone had equal opportunity to show up, which we can't and aren't ever likely to
not to mention it kind of is contingent on a healthy existing discourse, which isn't going to happen as long as Fox News exists
For me I just don't have the time nor the want to go down to a community center and argue with people for like what 2+ hours? I'd rather just vote in the mail and be done with it.
You are lucky if you get out in under four hours.
Good god damn lord.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The 2016 caucus was the most miserable experience I have ever had participating within the political system.
I was a delegate to my district caucus (or whichever the second round was) and I actually walked out without voting it was such a clusterfuck.
You were lucky then. I stayed the whole time, past where we were kicked out of the venue because we went over our allotted rental time.
E: We got let in at 1, we finished and I left at 6:45.
E2: It's doubly ridiculous because there should be literally no reason it should take that long. This is the second stage. The first stage is where the talking and arguing happens and then people select a delegate to represent them. At stage 2 we're there to represent the people who selected us, changing our vote is a betrayal of their wishes. There should just be a count and further delegate selection and that's it.
oh yeah, I saw this crosscut interview with one of the subjects of that horrible shit piece of propaganda linked earlier today, seems worth sharing here:
oh yeah, I saw this crosscut interview with one of the subjects of that horrible shit piece of propaganda linked earlier today, seems worth sharing here:
Last I checked I thought Seattle was growing stupidly fast. Really uneven but otherwise constant growth.
Well, good news! It wasn't actually about how Seattle is dying, it was about how the homeless are responsible for their own homelessness and should be put in prison.
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I didn’t watch it, but from what I gather it was a bunch of fearmongering because rich people have to look at poor people and that’s so awful something must be done.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
the conclusion of which was that we should spend our entire homelessness budget to convert macneil island into a big prison that we could exile all the homeless people to. the island currently is being used as a civil commitment center for sex offenders.
I didn’t watch it, but from what I gather it was a bunch of fearmongering because rich people have to look at poor people and that’s so awful something must be done.
I don’t know, I think it’s equally absurd to completely ignore the very real impacts that homelessness is having on the streets in central Seattle. I walk through Capitol Hill and Pioneer Square before business hours, it can get rough. And there does seem to have been an uptick in violent crime by, against, and between the homeless as well.
This special is hot garbage, but the constant refrain of “the rich just don’t want to look at the poor” is equally garbage. There has to be some middle ground there.
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I didn’t watch it, but from what I gather it was a bunch of fearmongering because rich people have to look at poor people and that’s so awful something must be done.
I don’t know, I think it’s equally absurd to completely ignore the very real impacts that homelessness is having on the streets in central Seattle. I walk through Capitol Hill and Pioneer Square before business hours, it can get rough. And there does seem to have been an uptick in violent crime by, against, and between the homeless as well.
This special is hot garbage, but the constant refrain of “the rich just don’t want to look at the poor” is equally garbage. There has to be some middle ground there.
If you present the other side as ignoring that homelessness is a problem then yes that would be completely absurd, but that's absolutely not what's happening.
I didn’t watch it, but from what I gather it was a bunch of fearmongering because rich people have to look at poor people and that’s so awful something must be done.
I don’t know, I think it’s equally absurd to completely ignore the very real impacts that homelessness is having on the streets in central Seattle. I walk through Capitol Hill and Pioneer Square before business hours, it can get rough. And there does seem to have been an uptick in violent crime by, against, and between the homeless as well.
This special is hot garbage, but the constant refrain of “the rich just don’t want to look at the poor” is equally garbage. There has to be some middle ground there.
When the rich routinely push removal and relocation over actual help and support for the homeless, it's pretty clear what their actual problem is.
Actual solutions to homelessness include Housing First (by providing homeless people with homes and social support, they are able to fix the issues that led them into homelessness in the first place), and creation of affordable housing to create downward pressure on rent. (There are ways to do this right, and they're not even that expensive.)
Creating a camp to concentrate undesirables in isn't a solution we should be pursuing.
eric johnson's/KOMO's proposed solution is literally "send the undesirables to Prison Island"
Is that actually KOMO's thrust, or is it likely that was Sinclair?
They aired it, they put their bylines on it. And I can't open Nextdoor without sobbing anymore, because every other thread is my neighbors agitating each other even more and more to round up all the homeless because of this fucking hit piece.
Dehumanized on
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
eric johnson's/KOMO's proposed solution is literally "send the undesirables to Prison Island"
Is that actually KOMO's thrust, or is it likely that was Sinclair?
They aired it, they put their bylines on it. And I can't open Nextdoor without sobbing anymore, because every other thread is my neighbors agitating each other even more and more to round up all the homeless because of this fucking hit piece.
Yeah, but there's been a lot of unbelievable awful shit that Sinclair has made KOMO air over the years, just normally they air it at like 2am when no when is actually watching it.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
eric johnson's/KOMO's proposed solution is literally "send the undesirables to Prison Island"
Is that actually KOMO's thrust, or is it likely that was Sinclair?
They aired it, they put their bylines on it. And I can't open Nextdoor without sobbing anymore, because every other thread is my neighbors agitating each other even more and more to round up all the homeless because of this fucking hit piece.
Yeah, but there's been a lot of unbelievable awful shit that Sinclair has made KOMO air over the years, just normally they air it at like 2am when no when is actually watching it.
if sinclair did mandate this, what's the difference? i don't think they did; but the fact remains that local reporters made it, local news aired it prominently and promoted it (and why wouldn't they, Eric Johnson's last two similar specials in 2016 and 2017 both won regional emmys), and local groups like safe seattle are chomping at the bit to send in some greenshirts and round people up
Dehumanized on
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
eric johnson's/KOMO's proposed solution is literally "send the undesirables to Prison Island"
Is that actually KOMO's thrust, or is it likely that was Sinclair?
They aired it, they put their bylines on it. And I can't open Nextdoor without sobbing anymore, because every other thread is my neighbors agitating each other even more and more to round up all the homeless because of this fucking hit piece.
Yeah, but there's been a lot of unbelievable awful shit that Sinclair has made KOMO air over the years, just normally they air it at like 2am when no when is actually watching it.
if sinclair did mandate this, what's the difference? i don't think they did; but the fact remains that local reporters made it, local news aired it prominently and promoted it (and why wouldn't they, Eric Johnson's last two similar specials in 2016 and 2017 both won regional emmys), and local groups like safe seattle are chomping at the bit to send in some greenshirts and round people up
I haven't engaged with local news at all for a bit, so I wasn't aware of promotions, and I guess I probably could have looked up what time it aired, but if Sinclair is requiring them to show something, and they hide it at weird hours that no one watches, thats a form of rebellion against the agenda they are being asked to promote.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Last I checked I thought Seattle was growing stupidly fast. Really uneven but otherwise constant growth.
Well, good news! It wasn't actually about how Seattle is dying, it was about how the homeless are responsible for their own homelessness and should be put in prison.
Every time I've been to Seattle and Tacoma there's certainly been homeless people but it's never felt as severe as out here in Baltimore and DC.
I don't ever see places like Union Gospel Mission out here. I'm sure they exist but they don't seem as central to the cities.
eric johnson's/KOMO's proposed solution is literally "send the undesirables to Prison Island"
Is that actually KOMO's thrust, or is it likely that was Sinclair?
They aired it, they put their bylines on it. And I can't open Nextdoor without sobbing anymore, because every other thread is my neighbors agitating each other even more and more to round up all the homeless because of this fucking hit piece.
Yeah, but there's been a lot of unbelievable awful shit that Sinclair has made KOMO air over the years, just normally they air it at like 2am when no when is actually watching it.
if sinclair did mandate this, what's the difference? i don't think they did; but the fact remains that local reporters made it, local news aired it prominently and promoted it (and why wouldn't they, Eric Johnson's last two similar specials in 2016 and 2017 both won regional emmys), and local groups like safe seattle are chomping at the bit to send in some greenshirts and round people up
I haven't engaged with local news at all for a bit, so I wasn't aware of promotions, and I guess I probably could have looked up what time it aired, but if Sinclair is requiring them to show something, and they hide it at weird hours that no one watches, thats a form of rebellion against the agenda they are being asked to promote.
Most of the Sinclair stuff is pretty vague and doesn't really go into specific places very much. They might have targeted Seattle because of Trump's hatred of Bezos and Amazon, but generally they just force vague Pro-Trump thinkpieces or pre-recorded segments about how important Conservative thought is.
Man I don't care what your bosses tell you to do, if the "conclusion" of your think piece on the homeless is to escape from New York them on to a prison island I'd fucking quit. Have some god damn integrity or I assume you think that's a perfectly fine idea in which case fuck you buddy.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
the reality is that most middle class white homeowners think that prison island is completely reasonable
that's one of America's dirty secrets--most Americans don't want to solve homelessness, what they want is for homeless people to not exist anymore, and they don't particularly care how it happens
if someone pitched a work camp for homeless folk out near the Idaho border, in which most inmates just happened to meet their deaths, these people would be fine with it as long as it was plausibly deniable that homelessness was a capital crime--"they're work camps, not death camps"
they don't think that homelessness is actually solvable, because it is seen as a personal failing, not a necessary consequence of commodified housing or of capitalism, and therefore they don't think that any of the actual solutions (that is, just building permanent free housing for the homeless, like Utah did) are morally justifiable
and it just so happens that this position aligns with making sure their property values don't go down or their taxes go up, ever
I didn’t watch it, but from what I gather it was a bunch of fearmongering because rich people have to look at poor people and that’s so awful something must be done.
I don’t know, I think it’s equally absurd to completely ignore the very real impacts that homelessness is having on the streets in central Seattle. I walk through Capitol Hill and Pioneer Square before business hours, it can get rough. And there does seem to have been an uptick in violent crime by, against, and between the homeless as well.
This special is hot garbage, but the constant refrain of “the rich just don’t want to look at the poor” is equally garbage. There has to be some middle ground there.
When the rich routinely push removal and relocation over actual help and support for the homeless, it's pretty clear what their actual problem is.
Sure, some people. I’m all for both. You call it removal and relocation, I call it management. It’s a zoning issue as far as I’m concerned. And I’m a YIMBY. A legit camp was opened near my home, and it seemed perfectly reasonable to me. It had trash and sanitation service, was near a direct and rapid bus downtown, seemed fair to me. I’m not offended by the sight of poverty (hell there’s plenty of homed poverty in my neighborhood).
What I’m offended by is having to step into the street because somebody has decided the entire sidewalk is their property now. The homeless have to be able to exist, and that does mean being able to rest somewhere as well (both common decency and the law demand this). We don’t necessarily need to allow that within the central business district though. Cities are all about managing interactions and space between individuals.
And people pushing housing first don’t ever seem to answer the question of what you do with the portion...and it’s a small portion, to be clear...who either refuse help or can’t manage to leverage that help into a permanent change. I’m all for Housing First. I’m ready to pay more in taxes to fund it. But I’m skeptical that the half naked guy shouting in the middle of the street and throwing a paper-bagged forty at a passing car is going to make it. At some point we need to talk about...I mean I don’t know what else to call it than Incarceration Second. Whether it’s involuntary rehab, some form of non punitive confinement, or just plain old jail we need to talk about where somebody who is actually disturbing the peace is gonna go once we get all the folks helped who want help.
I also wonder what portion of the homeless are really causing the serious problems leading to this push. We have like 12K or 14K homeless in the county, but I’d be surprised if more than maybe 2K are actually the ones causing the acute impact, which is who most people are talking about when they refer to “the homeless.” We’re centering the conversation about a large population around what ultimately is a much smaller subset.
I dunno, that was a lot of words. I do know that some assholes just don’t want to see tents, and screw those people. But I think thinks have gotten bad enough that even more moderate people, more generally compassionate people, may start to find common ground with the “round them up” element. There’s a reason this piece hit so hard, even if it’s like 90% bullshit. Because things have gotten pretty damn bad, and eventually people will start listening to the folks addressing the most acute aspect of the issue, rather than the ones who insist on focusing on the broader but less acute aspect...even if the former are bringing a lot of bullshit with them.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Generally the "naked and screaming" type of homeless have lapsed on their meds because they can't afford them/can no longer obtain them due to reasons out of their control (one of my former coworkers was like this). Without a large social support apparatus to track and care for those individuals, they're going to fall through the cracks and spiral out of control a lot faster than the ones who are living out of their car because they missed a rent payment or two.
Sadly it's difficult to get people to care about individuals who meet every existential and visual criteria for "The Abjectly Miserable" when there's no social, political, or economic incentive to do so. We're basically fighting a war against capitalism and middle(ish) class aversion to "shelling out for nebulous benefits". It's a fucking Sisyphean task if ever there was one.
+14
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
My ideal solution is to tax the fuck out of all the rich companies that have offices here (and jack up the tax rates on condos that are valued at 500k+, which are more often commodities than residential vessels) and use that money to build public housing facilities and beef up social support programs.
Posts
Good god damn lord.
pleasepaypreacher.net
You were lucky then. I stayed the whole time, past where we were kicked out of the venue because we went over our allotted rental time.
E: We got let in at 1, we finished and I left at 6:45.
E2: It's doubly ridiculous because there should be literally no reason it should take that long. This is the second stage. The first stage is where the talking and arguing happens and then people select a delegate to represent them. At stage 2 we're there to represent the people who selected us, changing our vote is a betrayal of their wishes. There should just be a count and further delegate selection and that's it.
It was such a clusterfuck.
https://www.seattle.gov/democracyvoucher
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
pleasepaypreacher.net
Cool. Cool cool cool.
Thankfully I was still at work. No one I know was injured.
It’s always weird to hear any Metro news when you have a brother, an uncle, and a cousin who all drive Metro.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Is that the one where two people got killed? Shits crazy. Someone on 520 either shot themselves or was shot back on I think tuesday?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
That story was real vague when it first came out but a dude pulled onto the shoulder and shot himself.
because it was a huge piece of shit
Conservative propaganda through and through. I expect nothing less from a Sinclair owned station.
https://crosscut.com/2019/03/man-used-proof-seattle-dying-tells-his-story
Crosscut is a non-profit journalistic organization focused on PNW stories.
Can he sue for defamation? Because they pretty clearly defamed him.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well, good news! It wasn't actually about how Seattle is dying, it was about how the homeless are responsible for their own homelessness and should be put in prison.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
the conclusion of which was that we should spend our entire homelessness budget to convert macneil island into a big prison that we could exile all the homeless people to. the island currently is being used as a civil commitment center for sex offenders.
here's another crosscut article about it: https://crosscut.com/2019/03/6-reasons-why-komos-take-homelessness-wrong-one
I don’t know, I think it’s equally absurd to completely ignore the very real impacts that homelessness is having on the streets in central Seattle. I walk through Capitol Hill and Pioneer Square before business hours, it can get rough. And there does seem to have been an uptick in violent crime by, against, and between the homeless as well.
This special is hot garbage, but the constant refrain of “the rich just don’t want to look at the poor” is equally garbage. There has to be some middle ground there.
If you present the other side as ignoring that homelessness is a problem then yes that would be completely absurd, but that's absolutely not what's happening.
When the rich routinely push removal and relocation over actual help and support for the homeless, it's pretty clear what their actual problem is.
Is that actually KOMO's thrust, or is it likely that was Sinclair?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Creating a camp to concentrate undesirables in isn't a solution we should be pursuing.
pleasepaypreacher.net
They aired it, they put their bylines on it. And I can't open Nextdoor without sobbing anymore, because every other thread is my neighbors agitating each other even more and more to round up all the homeless because of this fucking hit piece.
Yeah, but there's been a lot of unbelievable awful shit that Sinclair has made KOMO air over the years, just normally they air it at like 2am when no when is actually watching it.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
if sinclair did mandate this, what's the difference? i don't think they did; but the fact remains that local reporters made it, local news aired it prominently and promoted it (and why wouldn't they, Eric Johnson's last two similar specials in 2016 and 2017 both won regional emmys), and local groups like safe seattle are chomping at the bit to send in some greenshirts and round people up
I haven't engaged with local news at all for a bit, so I wasn't aware of promotions, and I guess I probably could have looked up what time it aired, but if Sinclair is requiring them to show something, and they hide it at weird hours that no one watches, thats a form of rebellion against the agenda they are being asked to promote.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Every time I've been to Seattle and Tacoma there's certainly been homeless people but it's never felt as severe as out here in Baltimore and DC.
I don't ever see places like Union Gospel Mission out here. I'm sure they exist but they don't seem as central to the cities.
Most of the Sinclair stuff is pretty vague and doesn't really go into specific places very much. They might have targeted Seattle because of Trump's hatred of Bezos and Amazon, but generally they just force vague Pro-Trump thinkpieces or pre-recorded segments about how important Conservative thought is.
Here's the KOMO version of that script.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
pleasepaypreacher.net
that's one of America's dirty secrets--most Americans don't want to solve homelessness, what they want is for homeless people to not exist anymore, and they don't particularly care how it happens
if someone pitched a work camp for homeless folk out near the Idaho border, in which most inmates just happened to meet their deaths, these people would be fine with it as long as it was plausibly deniable that homelessness was a capital crime--"they're work camps, not death camps"
they don't think that homelessness is actually solvable, because it is seen as a personal failing, not a necessary consequence of commodified housing or of capitalism, and therefore they don't think that any of the actual solutions (that is, just building permanent free housing for the homeless, like Utah did) are morally justifiable
and it just so happens that this position aligns with making sure their property values don't go down or their taxes go up, ever
Sure, some people. I’m all for both. You call it removal and relocation, I call it management. It’s a zoning issue as far as I’m concerned. And I’m a YIMBY. A legit camp was opened near my home, and it seemed perfectly reasonable to me. It had trash and sanitation service, was near a direct and rapid bus downtown, seemed fair to me. I’m not offended by the sight of poverty (hell there’s plenty of homed poverty in my neighborhood).
What I’m offended by is having to step into the street because somebody has decided the entire sidewalk is their property now. The homeless have to be able to exist, and that does mean being able to rest somewhere as well (both common decency and the law demand this). We don’t necessarily need to allow that within the central business district though. Cities are all about managing interactions and space between individuals.
And people pushing housing first don’t ever seem to answer the question of what you do with the portion...and it’s a small portion, to be clear...who either refuse help or can’t manage to leverage that help into a permanent change. I’m all for Housing First. I’m ready to pay more in taxes to fund it. But I’m skeptical that the half naked guy shouting in the middle of the street and throwing a paper-bagged forty at a passing car is going to make it. At some point we need to talk about...I mean I don’t know what else to call it than Incarceration Second. Whether it’s involuntary rehab, some form of non punitive confinement, or just plain old jail we need to talk about where somebody who is actually disturbing the peace is gonna go once we get all the folks helped who want help.
I also wonder what portion of the homeless are really causing the serious problems leading to this push. We have like 12K or 14K homeless in the county, but I’d be surprised if more than maybe 2K are actually the ones causing the acute impact, which is who most people are talking about when they refer to “the homeless.” We’re centering the conversation about a large population around what ultimately is a much smaller subset.
I dunno, that was a lot of words. I do know that some assholes just don’t want to see tents, and screw those people. But I think thinks have gotten bad enough that even more moderate people, more generally compassionate people, may start to find common ground with the “round them up” element. There’s a reason this piece hit so hard, even if it’s like 90% bullshit. Because things have gotten pretty damn bad, and eventually people will start listening to the folks addressing the most acute aspect of the issue, rather than the ones who insist on focusing on the broader but less acute aspect...even if the former are bringing a lot of bullshit with them.
Sadly it's difficult to get people to care about individuals who meet every existential and visual criteria for "The Abjectly Miserable" when there's no social, political, or economic incentive to do so. We're basically fighting a war against capitalism and middle(ish) class aversion to "shelling out for nebulous benefits". It's a fucking Sisyphean task if ever there was one.
Solution to 90% of problems really