What can we do to help the homeless help themselves?
In an earlier article I wrote briefly about homelessness, and stated that a primary cause was mental illness, followed by substance abuse. I would like to clarify and elaborate on that, give some cites (and sites) for more information, and posit a possible solution.…
Article comments
26 - roger nowosielski
@23
Point simply was, Glenn, that blaming the victim, however warranted in a number of cases, prevents us from taking an empathic stance, the kind of stance I consider necessary in order to be able to grapple with the problem of homelessness with utmost seriousness. So yes, in this context, labeling is an easy way out, a way of absolving ourselves from any responsibility as members of the society for the existing state of affairs.
Thomas Szasz had some interesting things to say on the subject in The Myth of Mental Ilness; and so had Michel Foucault in the course of his many studies of penal institutions and mental asylums; and Ervin Goffman as well. The general idea, however, is that labeling and ascriptions of deviance are proven societal devices which aim at marginalizing those segments of our society we find either troublesome or inconvenient.
So yes, my attack on the so-called "objectivity" so applied in these cases was meant as stated. It smacks either of perversion or, more likely, naivete.
27 - Dr Dreadful
As far as know, he's not a doctor, which possibly makes him a charlatan.
Well, I do call myself Dr Dreadful...
28 - roger nowosielski
Since we're on the subject, Dreadful, how is this one for size?
"Sia, most doctors have not been challenged with facts and asked to provide evidence to support their advice, they probably have women who say they don't want to test because it's painful, embarrassing, violating etc and Papscreen have a list of responses they can use to meet these "excuses", but the facts have always been hidden from women."
Quite fortuitous, I should say, comment #6760 should appear right after your own.
29 - Christopher Rose
#24 - That's right, Roger, ignore the meat of a comment so you don't have to confront your intellectual inadequacies, which are many and profound. There's only one charlatan on this thread...
30 - roger nowosielski
I'm just as free to ignore what consider bullshit, Chris, as you are. Which, according to your definition, makes us both charlatans. But at least I don't claim any title as part of my handle.
31 - Christopher Rose
Roger, your #30 is largely incomprehensible and what isn't incomprehensible is incoherent.
The FACTS here are that Doc D praised OAR for a "refreshing lack of dogma" and then referred to mental illness being a major cause of homelessness.
You then chimed in with the somewhat confused and confusing remark "Dogma? I should think the notion that " ... mental illness is a major cause of homelessness" is more of a dogma than letting go of "the conventional wisdom."
Ignoring the largely low content level of your remark, you also managed to criticise OAR's remarks as being a weak presentation, which nobody else thinks, and then accuse Doc of somehow encouraging bad habits by his response to OAR, which he wasn't.
Not being content with one bout of bullshit, you then responded to the Doc's reasonable and reasoned repudiation of your interjection with an even more tangential and irrelevant remark that ignored what he said and accused him of using the royal "we", which he wasn't. He simply pointed out that your interpretation of what is being said and what is actually being said are normally poles apart.
That is both a matter of historical record and proven yet again by your every utterance starting with comment #17.
Not content with that, you then pompously proclaim that you see this as a compliment!
I then tried to point out the error in understanding you were making but presumably that was too much for your rampant ego to contemplate so you ignored that and seized on my use of the term "good doctor" to make an even more irrelevant remark.
You are free to ignore bullshit of course, but as the only bullshit on this thread has come from you, that would put you in the odd position of trying to ignore yourself.
What you ought to do is stop trying to present as some kind of intellectual and philosophical whizz, which you really aren't, and enter more into the spirit of honest and humble enquiry, which is the only position of integrity it is possible to take.
All you are doing is contributing ever more evidence to support the conjecture that philosophy is barely a science at all, thereby undermining that which you claim to love...
32 - roger nowosielski
Wasn't my #30 that matters -- it was just a stupid response to a stupid remark -- but my my #26.
But that's alright, Chrst. It only serves me right for responding to a fool.
So once again, you win. I'm more than happy to grant you that.
33 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
That's right, Roger, ignore the meat of a comment so you don't have to confront your intellectual inadequacies, which are many and profound
That statement speaks volumes about you...and most BC regulars (but not all) have read such volumes before.
I've had a longstanding disagreement with Roger, but as with Clavos and Dave and others, while I disagree strongly with some or most of what they say, I acknowledge their worth and I give them my respect...and I'll stick up for them whenever I see puerile insults such as your #29.
Generally speaking, Chris, you'll get just as much respect as you give...or don't give. That's a valuable lesson, a tool you can use as the decades go by. I suggest you use it.
34 - Christopher Rose
Roger, once again your confusion gets the better of you; your #26 was addressed to Glenn in response to his #23, so had nothing to do with our little exchange.
You are right in depicting your #30 as a stupid remark though, although it was stupid in a different way to your other comments. There aren't any stupid remarks on this thread by other commenters though.
It's not about winning and losing, Rog, although it is interesting that you cast this as some kind of contest or game, it is about reaching out to others and communicating honestly. Unfortunately this is something you are really bad at because you don't listen, which is where communication starts or, in your case, starts to break down.
Attentively yours...
35 - Christopher Rose
Glenn, I acknowledge and respect the value of people who are committed to a spirit of enquiry and discovery, communication and sharing, not to those who blow their own trumpets or manage to block or confuse communication.
Based on your words above, you seem to respect people who are committed to dogma of one kind or another, which is understandable as you are that kind of person too. I don't respect that kind of thinking though.
If people are going to indulge in what I see as a kind of dishonesty I am going to oppose it, regardless of whether I benefit or lose as a consequence of their particular dogma or whether I like them personally.
What I wrote in #29 isn't a puerile insult because it is an accurate depiction of what Roger did and therefore true.
I really don't care whether dogmatists respect me or not and when I want some advice I'll seek it from some one whose thinking I respect, not those blinded by their beliefs, who I don't trust at all.
As such, I give respect to and get it from people who can actually think for themselves...
I don't find anything of value in your "lesson", except a reminder not to trust the corrupt and dishonest that debase and limit us all. For that, at least, thanks.
36 - roger nowosielski
Confusion is your forte, Christopher, not mine. Of course it was addressed to Glenn because he had balls enough to inquire as to the meaning. But in effect, the remark was addressed, in only in general terms, to the article's author, Dreadful and all the drive-by commenters such as yourself who think it fit to jump into the fray just for the hell of it.
But as I said, Christopher, I'm only wasting my words on the not-so-wise, so please forgive me if I'll bow out.
37 - Glenn Contrarian
Incredible. Absolutely incredible.
He puts himself in the seat of judgement proclaiming that a man has "many and profound mental inadequacies"...
...and then, when called on that statement, says:
What I wrote in #29 isn't a puerile insult because it is an accurate depiction of what Roger did and therefore true.
First, the "many and profound intellectual inadequacies" statement describes what you believe to be Roger's mental capability, his state of being. THEN you tried to justify it by claiming such was "an accurate depiction of what Roger DID and therefore true" (caps mine).
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, Chris, but there's a yawning gulf of difference between what a person IS and what a person DID...and your puerile insult was a judgement concerning his state of being and in NO way depicted what he did or did not do.
Chris, I strongly recommend that you back off and reassess your tone and your conduct, because you apparently don't realize that you're not hurting Roger or myself - we're both too mature for such vulnerability - but your uncalled-for (and quite inaccurate) insult followed by your frivolous attempt to justify it are doing nothing more than tearing down your own credibility.
38 - Glenn Contrarian
And I'll follow Roger's lead and bow out as well.
39 - Christopher Rose
Roger, I had no idea you had a talent for comedy but congratulations, your #36 made me laugh out loud!
Glenn, I've no idea what the "seat of judgement" is but if you find it incredible to describe the behaviour of someone who apparently wilfully misunderstands and/or distorts what people communicate then you need to get out more often.
I strongly recommend that you get off your high horse and stop issuing unwanted and unhelpful advice.
I reject your baffling and inaccurate presumption as I've no interest in hurting either Roger or you. I am puzzled by your depiction of you both as mature though, unless you mean old, which would be odd even if true; I've not seen any sign of maturity from either of you although I do know lots of young people who display far more of it than the two of you.
Finally, if you think that whether the opinion of dogmatists impacts on my credibility in any way, or that I think you have any ability to assess what credibility is, you are very seriously mistaken.
40 - Dr Dreadful
Roger, I had no idea you had a talent for comedy
This armchair philosopher walks into a bar...
41 - roger nowosielski
Shoot, Glenn, if Chris even in his wildest dreams entertains the notion that he's hurting or insulting me, he's got a think coming. And I couldn't care less about his intent either.
I've had close to three years of experience of Chris' usually drive-by "contributions" to BC conversations, so yes, my opinion of him is pretty well formed, and it would take a miracle for me even to consider changing it.
So yes, I always consider the source; it'd be a fool not to.
Worry not, Chris, I lose no sleep whatever over what you say or do. And in the long run, lest it hadn't occurred to you yet, the only person you're hurting is yourself.
Enough of this foolishness. Bye bye!
42 - Christopher Rose
Roger, Roger, Roger, what are we to do with you?
Here we are addressing the issue of your communication problems and there you go repeating them.
Not only did you say you were out of here - although nobody who knows you as you present online believed that for one minute but half an hour before your most recent comment I already wrote that I had no interest in hurting you.
To correct another of your misunderstandings, it isn't you that has had three years of my comments but me that has had three of yours!
I know you you think you're one of the site regulars but in fact compared to many you're still a new kid and one that is incredibly slow to get the hang of things to boot!
Your opinion of me probably is pretty well formed but that's not to say it is well informed; that would take an ability to understand words properly...
It would take a miracle for you to actually change your opinion, not to consider it, as your thinking process are slightly more rigid than a stone carving.
Keep comforting yourself with your strange perceptions and philosophical musings, whilst life goes on and other people do real things in the real world rather than talking about it whilst hearing nothing and learning less!
43 - One American's Rant
We seem to have wandered afield, and I doubt we can get back on target. I do want to post this quote, that seems to be about the comments on this thread, although not about the original topic. Some of you may recognize it as it was posted here.
"Most of us, as a matter of fact, do our damndest to live by our own lights, and we shouldn’t diminish anyone simply because we disagree. Again, different conceptions of justice are at stake, nothing more. To raise it to another level, to deny a person their basic humanity simply because we disagree, to regard them as somehow different from you and me, categorically and absolutely, is to commit a far graver error than they themselves may be guilty of. It is to regard them as somehow less than human. Apart from the self-serving, emotional satisfaction such pronouncements may or may not serve, the far greater damage comes by way of breaking off all communications with the very people you should want to reach."
---- Roger Nowosielski
44 - Glenn Contrarian
OAR -
Well said (and the same goes for Roger in his quote you included).
I must admit that most of the time, with articles that receive more than one full page of comments, somebody starts going off on a tangent...and this is true of every political stripe and level of education or integrity.
And it does take an effort to pull things back on track, and sometimes those efforts are not successful...but sometimes they are.
45 - Humility
I think if you count acquired depression from a cultural "ass whipping" then it's probably even higher than 30%.
I have noticed there are quite a lot of people that bemoan doing anything that helps people that are so beat down that they have given up.
The mentality seems to say:
"I have been disappointed in my life too, guess you were just too weak to handle it. You don't deserve to be helped since you are too lazy to try to get back up."
Then on top of it it seems that they require actually being successful as the stick to measure whether you are trying.
"What you aren't successful yet? you lazy f^
46 - One American's Rant
#45 - I had not really counted clinical depression as a major causative factor in continued homelessness, but it is likely THE major cause. I have never been that depressed, but I have heard that it is impossible to do much of anything while in that state.
47 - Glenn Contrarian
"Humility" -
Well said.
That's a major reason (the other being their national tradition of tolerance) the people in the Philippines where I'm at now are generally happier than in America - most people here don't look down upon those who are poor, whereas in America, "What, you don't have a car/HDTV/computer/iPad/whatever? What's wrong with you???"
Culturally-induced depression. That's something to think about.