What is this “long history” you speak of? Point to it for me. Demonstrate you know what you’re talking about.

Believe me, I have no love of conservatives, but you still have to back up your points with facts.

It’s very easy to debunk Trump’s points with facts because he has none.

LOL, then your point is garbage.

I would recommend we stop using a term altogether and simply make our points. Words can always be deconstructed and redefined. The fact that we create and cling to them is our own fault. “Woke” was a term created by the Left and redefined by the Right. It’s very frustrating to me how we’ve totally cooperated with way the Right is redefining the term by responding to it as though they have a legit understanding of it. Which we have done simply by responding. So many of us are like “they don’t know what it means!” But they do. We defined it for them, and now we just don’t like that they’re using it to attack us. The definition of “woke” is “liberal bullshit.” And it has meaning to all conservatives; the fact that liberals think it’s meaningless doesn’t matter. We don’t even use the term anymore, because we’ve acquiesced to the conservative definition. That means they’ve won, with respect to that specific term. So, stop using it. Let them have it. Move on.

Ooh, sick burn.

You’re just plain wrong. As evidenced by the mainstream media using it as such. They’re not pandering to Nazis. They’re pandering to mainstream liberals, and they see it as a negative term. Go cry to them. Boo-hoo.

yea, because right wing propaganda has turned it into a pejorative.

LOL, it hasn’t done that in its own. Stop giving them more influence than they’re due. Woke language even has librarais cringing, and it’s not because they oppose the message.

Woke messaging has a problem with exaggeration, the same as all political messaging does. You guys say things like “all gender identities are social constructs,” when that’s clearly not the case. You say things like “all racism is due to systemic racism,” when clearly that’s not the case. People see this. They’re not stupid. They see that your assertions are wrong. I align with the message, I really do, but I’m tired of “woke” messengers fucking up our message with their hyperbolic bullshit. This plays right into Trump’s hands! And until you dipshits see it, he will continue to take advantage and win. So, I’m sorry if you don’t like me pointing it out, but you’re the fucking problem!

It’s real simple: woke has a negative connotation for a reason. I won’t deny that the context is complex, but if you think most people react positively to the phrase, you’re living under a rock.

For someone who’s so “woke” you’re really societally unaware. But I guess that might be the point….

Coach Z?

Maybe stop labeling them the “enemy” with posts like these?

It sounds like wherever you are does not have adequate services for their homeless population. That’s a serious problem, and I would obviously advocate for the expansion of said services over sleep-prevention measures added to park benches.

But I am a therapist with experience working with homeless people, and contrary to what you apparently think, my experience does give me expertise on their lives. Where I live, they do have options. I’m sorry your state doesn’t serve its homeless population as well as mine. We can both agree that’s a bad thing. What we disagree on is that this simple park benches feature is/isn’t an “attack” on homeless people. I also hold the position that methadone clinics are a disservice to opioid addicts—due to my extensive experience with that population who are still addicted to opioids, and whose methadone clinics actively encourage them to remain on methadone rather than titrate off of it. Are you going to tell me that being against that is an “attack” on heroin addicts?

I’m sorry you’ve had the experiences you’ve had, but my position is entirely defensible, and you haven’t presented me with any evidence to the contrary. Moreover, your contention that I’m a “bad” therapist speaks volumes about your naïveté regarding my profession.

As I said to another commenter, “anti-homeless” measures like these make zero sense if there aren’t resources for the homeless available. I’m sorry, it doesn’t sound like resources were available to you, and that truly sucks. Your state should do better.

However, in places where resources are available, homeless people still sometimes refuse to utilize them, and then measures like this become valid and utilitarian.

Not where I live. There are plenty of options for the homeless in my city, but we still have problems with homeless people taking up public space because they would rather be left alone and not address their problems.

Do you think I’m lying? Can you not empathize with this problem? Do you really think all homeless people flock to the resources available to them? None of them resort to vagrancy at all? Do you think the inventors of these bench features had steepled fingers and were like, “Let’s fuck these homeless MFers even harder!”?

Providing resources only goes so far. As a therapist, I can easily tell you that merely making help available does not guarantee the needy will come get help. Sometimes, you have to make it impossible for people to escape the consequences of their actions before they’ll do the work necessary to get better.

Sounds like the area you were in didn’t have adequate homeless shelters. Where I live, you could always have gone there. The cops wouldn’t necessarily have taken you there, but you could certainly have gotten there in your own.

I will admit that “anti-homeless” bench features don’t make much sense unless you have places and resources for homeless people to fall back on. But if there are said resources, I see the utility of these features to disincentivize homeless people from using public benches as a substitute for getting professional help.

I am, and no, I don’t. Shocking, the idea that I engage with strangers online in a casual capacity differently than I do with my patients in a professional capacity.

I made a neutral comment, stating my opinion without any insults, and have been getting insulting comments like yours ever since. You want to throw barbs, but object to them being thrown back.

Grow the fuck up. I’m done with you in particular.

Literally anyone using the bench potentially prevents someone else from also using the bench. Why is it a bigger deal when it’s a homeless person doing the using?

If the homeless person was just sitting on the bench, it wouldn’t be an issue. The bench features we’re talking about aren’t designed to prevent people from sitting on them; they’re designed to prevent people from lying down on them comfortably, thereby taking up more space and using the bench for a purpose it was not intended.

You chided me for calling someone else stupid, so I’m trying to be nicer, but I honestly don’t feel like I should have to explain this to you.

Why is your focus on prevention and not education/outreach anyways?

As I’ve said in other comments, I support outreach attempts as well. My focus is on this prevention technique because it’s the topic of the thread.

No. But since you have experience, let me ask you: did you spend time sleeping on public benches and do you think features that attempt to prevent this are an attack on homeless people? And just to be clear, since this is a text-only format, I’m not being sarcastic or trying to make light of your experience; I’m genuinely curious.

Flyers wouldn’t prevent homeless people from using the bench as a bed, preventing other people from using it for its intended purpose, and would be almost entirely ignored.

Right, the person throwing insults in all caps says I’m the one who should be embarrassed. 🙄