What would I rebut? I never blamed SF on Republicans. The other poster did. I was implying there is a strong 'US Christian' attitude to be more outraged by accidentally helping someone that doesn't need it, that outweighs being 'Christian' and helping those that do need help. I'm not sure Christians are even glossing over this anymore. And this does lead to more bureaucracy to ensure this doesn't happen, and that is done by the legislatures when they create the organizations.
Then the other guy brought up "SF". A single word argument as if that was a 'rebuttal'. His 'rebuttal' was actually three words, "SF", "New York".
What are they implying by their one word argument?
I say something about Christians/Republican's, they just respond "SF". As if "SF" is in itself an entire argument against anything liberal or progressive and hence why we need to return to 'Old Testament' Bible values. "SF" is just another dog whistle for them, that we shouldn't be 'soft' on people.
You are bringing up actual problems. But what Republicans 'hear', is 'be more harsh on people'. Don't solve those problems, put them in jail.
And that despite Godwin's Law, this seemed very much in line with how Republicans argue (debate, market), they repeat the same short slogans over and over again. For so many years people have over used calling each other 'Nazi', that now we can't make any comparisons or someone brings up 'Godwin'. When there are actual real parallels that we should be pointing out.
So. My error is maybe lumping all Republicans in as Evangelical Christians.
I guess the problem is you listed a lot of different problems, and they all combine into something bad. But the article was about each individual program/organization trying to maintain itself. So I'd say this is one of those 'multi-polar' problems where each organization is trying their best, but they solve for a local minimum that is not optimal.
Is it really a single program spending $57K per person? Or is that number from adding up a number of programs? And it is all these different organizations, each solving part of the problem in-efficiently. And never solving the root problem, because that is out of the scope of any one program.
And, even if someone just handed me $57K in cash, could I afford to live in SF?
Isn't SF somewhat landlocked? hard to expand housing? And isn't housing somewhat geared towards the rich that skew right? Is it really progressives trying to keep away housing?
This is a bit all over place.
We could talk details about:
1. real world SF problems,
2. or how Republican Marketing techniques really do follow the Nasi playbook Goodwin or not,
3. or how organizations in general get stuck in some local minimum of bad incentives.
There is no one rebuttal to this thread. It is complex, and Republicans boil it down to a slogan, that is exactly what that nasi quote says to do.
Yes. Guess that is the problem. You try to cover the host of issues brought up, then you look scatter brained. One side just throws a lot of BS out there, it takes energy to try and respond, and the responder looks confused.
Then the other guy brought up "SF". A single word argument as if that was a 'rebuttal'. His 'rebuttal' was actually three words, "SF", "New York".
What are they implying by their one word argument?
I say something about Christians/Republican's, they just respond "SF". As if "SF" is in itself an entire argument against anything liberal or progressive and hence why we need to return to 'Old Testament' Bible values. "SF" is just another dog whistle for them, that we shouldn't be 'soft' on people.
You are bringing up actual problems. But what Republicans 'hear', is 'be more harsh on people'. Don't solve those problems, put them in jail.
And that despite Godwin's Law, this seemed very much in line with how Republicans argue (debate, market), they repeat the same short slogans over and over again. For so many years people have over used calling each other 'Nazi', that now we can't make any comparisons or someone brings up 'Godwin'. When there are actual real parallels that we should be pointing out.
So. My error is maybe lumping all Republicans in as Evangelical Christians.
I guess the problem is you listed a lot of different problems, and they all combine into something bad. But the article was about each individual program/organization trying to maintain itself. So I'd say this is one of those 'multi-polar' problems where each organization is trying their best, but they solve for a local minimum that is not optimal.
Is it really a single program spending $57K per person? Or is that number from adding up a number of programs? And it is all these different organizations, each solving part of the problem in-efficiently. And never solving the root problem, because that is out of the scope of any one program.
And, even if someone just handed me $57K in cash, could I afford to live in SF?
Isn't SF somewhat landlocked? hard to expand housing? And isn't housing somewhat geared towards the rich that skew right? Is it really progressives trying to keep away housing?
This is a bit all over place.
We could talk details about:
1. real world SF problems,
2. or how Republican Marketing techniques really do follow the Nasi playbook Goodwin or not,
3. or how organizations in general get stuck in some local minimum of bad incentives.
There is no one rebuttal to this thread. It is complex, and Republicans boil it down to a slogan, that is exactly what that nasi quote says to do.