> You seem to be aligning me with one side or the other.

I'm not sure why you think that, or even what the "sides" are in this case. I thought your response seemed a bit canned, so used it as a jumping point to talk about how I think a bit more critical thinking is good in some of these cases.

And critical it the operative word, not necessarily rational (as many seem to interpret it at least, to me rationalism without accounting for how it affects the human condition is somewhat worthless). The only reason critical thought would take you to violent and negative places is if you're doing it wrong. Lack of critical thinking leads to violence and negative places far more often from what I've seen.

> Giving in to "rational" dehumanization and hatred is not going to actually help anything and will probably make things worse.

This isn't about dehumanization. It's about not blandly lumping people together without forethought. That works for not assuming all homeless are drug addicts and criminals as well as it does for not assuming they're all completely upstanding citizens that for the quick right type of help could be your neighbor. They are an amalgamation of many people in many circumstances, and we should remember that and consider that.

If you are going to split hairs between "rational thought" and "critical thought", you'll have to elaborate because the two seem to be pretty much synonymous.

Generally, anytime you find yourself looking down with scorn on something, that is a great indication that there probably is something you don't understand and an attitude of contempt certainly won't help you figure out what that is.

> If you are going to split hairs between "rational thought" and "critical thought", you'll have to elaborate because the two seem to be pretty much synonymous.

I thought my aside about "rationalism" did that. For some people "rational" is loaded, and since you brought it up, I wanted to address it somehow. Whether true or not, some people equate rational with rationalism, and rationalism with not accounting for feelings and how people are in reality.

> Generally, anytime you find yourself looking down with scorn on something, that is a great indication that there probably is something you don't understand and an attitude of contempt certainly won't help you figure out what that is.

I agree in the general sense. But the only way that can be true in every sense is if nobody ever deserves scorn, and I think we can agree there are plenty of people that do deserve it because of their actions, from the extreme such as rapists and murderers to the mundane such as narcissists that they deserve whatever good fortune they can find or take, regardless of impact on others.

If you agree there are people worth scorning, the question in not whether "generally" this is a time or not, but given the specific subgroup in question has been described as those that decide they don't want to contribute to society and state that as the reason to live mostly outside it, but then want to receive the benefits of society, deserve that scorn. That is, to be clear, and as has been stated previously a few times, not all homeless people, but specifically those mentioned by the original commenter.

If you want to make a case that those people are misunderstood and perhaps their reasoning is X, Y or Z, feel free to do so, and I'll consider it. If you just want to defend them because they're part of a larger group you think deserves help, or because you feel compelled to defend them on principle, I ask you what purpose that serves? Critically thinking about the subject and coming to a better understanding is laudable, and defending something to cause some critical thought is as well, but I think we're beyond the point you could say no critical thought is being given to this, so unless you have actual points to add about this subject, I'm not sure what merit is left in calling out negative assessments as inherently bad or based only on not understanding.

Another way of looking at this is that if I had said serial rapists deserve our scorn, would you say that I'm just not understanding the situation or the people in question? If not, then that's an example of when scorn is sometimes acceptable, and we're left with whether the subject in question is actually deserving of it. In this case, you aren't providing any evidence one way or the other, just making broad assertions about thinking.

I don't despise, dehuminize, wish violence upon, or lack empathy for crusty street kids, because I can fully relate to them. And when I was one - or at least traveled as one - I was one of the few who bore no ill-will toward the people who chose to have cars and homes and careers and children. When I was 22 I thought the careerists had a limited view of the world: I still do. I just realize now that the punkabestia have a limited view, too. As you say, no one should be blinded by their social status into dehumanizing anyone else. But by the same token, it's possible to arrive at the conclusion that some things lead to objectively less miserable personal and social outcomes than others, based on experience, without apologizing to people who are still blinkered by certain views.

"Parasite" is a pretty dehumanizing term

I'm talking about an individual's relationship to society, not a born condition. It's a choice. This particular guy made it his life's mission to act in a parasitic fashion. No one's dehumanizing him, they're lionizing him. He's degraded himself more than any external characterization of him could do justice to. The word fits.