• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Commander will kill us all

PhDeac said:
“…the weird nostalgia for a time that perhaps never existed or when she was too young or too busy taking the bus to the lesbians to realize the real shit happening around her.
Click to expand...

I’m telling you man, it’s a real thing

myDeaconmyhand said:
Moderate MAGA, except instead of pining for the racist Norman Rockwell Leave It To Beaver fantasy of the 1940s, it’s pining for the Dot Com Boom era Bill Clinton 90s when boomers had just gotten rich, and before their children grew up and learned that boomers had fucked their future with climate pollution and short term greed driven global-corporate Economic policy
Click to expand...
 
wakelaw13 said:
I think it's entirely valid to ask why a major city run entirely by liberals, and perhaps the most liberal major city in this country, is failing. And I don't think the answer is that they haven't been progressive enough.
Click to expand...

Just because you label a place as “failing” doesn’t mean it is and it doesn’t make your question valid.
 
It makes sense that the wealthiest places in America would spend the most money trying to solve our nations problems and feel like failures in their inability to solve those problems. There are no short term interventionist solutions to long term structural problems. What people don’t seem to understand is the same national conditions that produced the great things about San Francisco also produced the bad things about San Francisco. Capitalism is not a utopian belief, it has losers by design.
 
PhDeac said:
“California is a failed state” and “SF/LA are failed cities” is just conservative propaganda to make their base in shitty rural areas run by Republicans feel better about the lack of government infrastructure to actually make their lives better.

That article is a weird rant backed up with nostalgia and a few stats. I went to SF for the first time in 2004. Been back a few time since, the place I’ve been to the most in CA. I’ve never liked it aside from some good meals in Chinatown. So the whole “SF used to be great but now it sucks since the progressives took over” seems even more silly to me than it does to people who like the city. This article was outrageous. She started the article by saying homelessness has always been a problem highlighting an incident when she was a little girl.

The use of black and white photos that probably weren’t from that long ago highlight the weird nostalgia for a time that perhaps never existed or when she was too young or too busy taking the bus to the lesbians to realize the real shit happening around her.

Progressive politics is like a virus to American moderate or center-right sensibilities. That read like the immune system kicking in.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I think the first time I went to SF was 2004 as well. I've been back twice since, both in the last few years. It is a very different city. I did not feel comfortable walking around at night in areas that are supposedly "high end." I felt like I was shopping in a prison canteen when I went to a drug store. It's a weird place now, and I don't really have any interest in spending time there. But I guess who gives a fuck about tourism and those who rely on it to feed their families.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
It makes sense that the wealthiest places in America would spend the most money trying to solve our nations problems and feel like failures in their inability to solve those problems. There are no short term interventionist solutions to long term structural problems. What people don’t seem to understand is the same national conditions that produced the great things about San Francisco also produced the bad things about San Francisco. Capitalism is not a utopian belief, it has losers by design.
Click to expand...

I agree with this and it’s a reason why no matter what cities do they can’t tackle the over arching problems because above them is counties, states, and federal responses to the same problems. I find fault though that when policies are made and there are consequences that those consequences are so easily dismissed. Like decriminalizing drug use and allowing safe needles etc… is a great policy and obviously is hard to implement when it becomes an oasis for anyone wanting to do those things across a nation that doesn’t have the same policy. However those policy ideas were made before the rampant and ease of use of fentanyl which is a completely different beast when it comes to addiction and consequences from it. You really are more running an assisted suicide help group than a safe drug use group.
 
wakelaw13 said:
Interestingly, I think the first time I went to SF was 2004 as well. I've been back twice since, both in the last few years. It is a very different city. I did not feel comfortable walking around at night in areas that are supposedly "high end." I felt like I was shopping in a prison canteen when I went to a drug store. It's a weird place now, and I don't really have any interest in spending time there. But I guess who gives a fuck about tourism and those who rely on it to feed their families.
Click to expand...

This is one of the weirdest posts that I've ever seen from an adult, I think?
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
I agree with this and it’s a reason why no matter what cities do they can’t tackle the over arching problems because above them is counties, states, and federal responses to the same problems. I find fault though that when policies are made and there are consequences that those consequences are so easily dismissed. Like decriminalizing drug use and allowing safe needles etc… is a great policy and obviously is hard to implement when it becomes an oasis for anyone wanting to do those things across a nation that doesn’t have the same policy. However those policy ideas were made before the rampant and ease of use of fentanyl which is a completely different beast when it comes to addiction and consequences from it. You really are more running an assisted suicide help group than a safe drug use group.
Click to expand...

I mean, instead of taking that agit-prop for granted, you could have looked at things like crime statistics, SFPD's clearance rate, and the fact that the mayor's office is defunding non-carceral solutions to addiction-caused homelessness like CART
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
I agree with this and it’s a reason why no matter what cities do they can’t tackle the over arching problems because above them is counties, states, and federal responses to the same problems. I find fault though that when policies are made and there are consequences that those consequences are so easily dismissed. Like decriminalizing drug use and allowing safe needles etc… is a great policy and obviously is hard to implement when it becomes an oasis for anyone wanting to do those things across a nation that doesn’t have the same policy. However those policy ideas were made before the rampant and ease of use of fentanyl which is a completely different beast when it comes to addiction and consequences from it. You really are more running an assisted suicide help group than a safe drug use group.
Click to expand...

Yeah, who would have thought that encouraging drug use would lead to more serious drug use. Mindblowing.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Yeah, who would have thought that encouraging drug use would lead to more serious drug use. Mindblowing.
Click to expand...

Your belief that providing drug addicts a safe *public* place to use drugs “encourages” them is a biased assumption, because you assume drug addicts are discouraged by using drugs out of sight with dirty needles, when that isn’t true. Safe injection sights are most often created and endorsed by addiction specialists most familiar with the dangers of intravenous drug use, and absolutely not encouraging of it.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Your belief that providing drug addicts a safe *public* place to use drugs “encourages” them is a biased assumption, because you assume drug addicts are discouraged by using drugs out of sight with dirty needles, when that isn’t true. Safe injection sights are most often created and endorsed by addiction specialists most familiar with the dangers of intravenous drug use, and absolutely not encouraging of it.
Click to expand...

No, my assumption is that if you give people access to something that creates a rush, a certain portion are going to push it to take that rush further. Same way if you give people access to a shotgun, pretty soon a portion of them wants an AR-15.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Your belief that providing drug addicts a safe *public* place to use drugs “encourages” them is a biased assumption, because you assume drug addicts are discouraged by using drugs out of sight with dirty needles, when that isn’t true. Safe injection sights are most often created and endorsed by addiction specialists most familiar with the dangers of intravenous drug use, and absolutely not encouraging of it.
Click to expand...


And typically offer opportunity for additional help…like with the additiction.
 
Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Ok, hear me out. Picture this...A Horseshoe...

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, my assumption is that if you give people access to something that creates a rush, a certain portion are going to push it to take that rush further. Same way if you give people access to a shotgun, pretty soon a portion of them wants an AR-15.
Click to expand...

Safe injection sites don’t provide drugs - they provide clean needles and testing kits for the drugs - they also pull drug addicts out of hiding so that people in the community, including law enforcement, can familiarize with them. Very often in cities like San Francisco, the very first time that authorities ever *see* drug users is after they have died.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Safe injection sites don’t provide drugs - they provide clean needles and testing kits for the drugs - they also pull drug addicts out of hiding so that people in the community, including law enforcement, can familiarize with them. Very often in cities like San Francisco, the very first time that authorities ever *see* drug users is after they have died.
Click to expand...

I'm always amused and somewhat saddened when people respond to 2&2 with silly stuff like "facts" and attempt to engage in a good faith discussion.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Safe injection sites don’t provide drugs - they provide clean needles and testing kits for the drugs - they also pull drug addicts out of hiding so that people in the community, including law enforcement, can familiarize with them. Very often in cities like San Francisco, the very first time that authorities ever *see* drug users is after they have died.
Click to expand...


Yep.

It’s a harm reduction strategy for people already addicted…including reducing the immediate harm of overdose, harms of viral infections transmitted by sharing needles, harms of bacterial infections associated with unsafe injection techniques, and the harms of addiction generally.
 
The problem is there is no safe drug use when fentanyl is involved, that’s one of the biggest reasons overdose deaths have increased by like 10 times in the last 5 years. You essentially would need personalized medicine to prevent it not just a safe space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top