1y ago

San Francisco homeless sweep was cheered on by the right. It was also illegal

www.vice.com San Francisco's Xi Homeless Sweep Was Cheered by the Right. It Was Also Illegal, Advocates Say

The action, which housing advocates allege violated a court injunction, was celebrated by right-wing figures and the tech crowd.

Hundreds of unsheltered people living in tent encampments in the blocks surrounding the Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco have been forced to leave by city outreach workers and police as part of an attempted “clean up the house” ahead of this week’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation’s annual free trade conference.

The action, which housing advocates allege violated a court injunction, was celebrated by right-wing figures and the tech crowd, who have long been convinced that the city is in terminal decline because of an increase in encampments in the downtown area.

The X account End Wokness wrote that the displacement was proof the “government can easily fix our cities overnight. It just doesn’t want to” (the post received 77,000 likes). “Queer Eye but it’s just Xi visiting troubled US cities then they get a makeover,” joked Packy McCormick, the founder of Not Boring Capital and advisor to Andreessen Horowitz’s crypto VC team. The New York Post celebrated the action, saying that residents had “miraculously disappeared.”

You're viewing a single thread.

196 comments

We shouldn't decide the morality of things based on it being legal or illegal. The law is at best an after thought around morality.
- I'll take "it was legal at the time" for a thousand, Alex.
  
  What are you referring to? Are you aware the sweep that was performed was illegal?
  You don’t even need to read the article; it’s in the headline.
  How does this statement about “legal at the time” correspond to anything in this story?
  
  First of all, I was playing off of the parent comment that legality is wholly divorced from morality, a notion that I agree with, rather than commenting on the article.
  Second, even though it's illegal, well, read the article. It seems to me that even the social aid organizations involved were giving a bunch of coy, shitty non-answers to the journalists involved in this story. This is kind of one of those unsettling moments where the institution has lost faith in itself, like when the SCOTUS found the removal of native Americans to be illegal and President Jackson said "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him come enforce it" and caused the trail of tears anyway. I doubt we're going to see any accountability come of this. So, even though it's illegal on paper, it's functionally legal; the state is just going to five finger salute the law on this one.
- The law is a essentially the enforceable moral code of the state that enforces it. Most criminal laws were created to penalise acts that are considered morally reprehensible. I wouldn't say the law is an afterthought around morality but a reflection of the morality of the state. The laws are largely written by the capitalistic class and are a reflection of what they consider right and wrong.
  
  Yeah but the problem with this sentiment is that it eschews responsibility for the state its self, a responsibility for which a people always ultimately are. A state legislature makes laws. City councils create rules. Dog catchers have policies. At any point you can work to take responsibility for those positions. Its not an abstract theoretical thing. These are real material positions.
  We are responsible for the society we live in.
  
  Yes. Laws can be changed but in reality but don't really have that much say nor do they even pay that much attention. Let me ask how much people really vote with the homeless on their mind? How much people voted for Biden because they were genuinely excited for him or because he just was the only way to prevent Trump from coming back? The laws of the state are a reflection of what it deems to be moral and just there's no way around that.
  
  I totally agree. Point is that a people are ultimately responsible for the state.
  
  Yes. So what is the disagreement about then? Laws are essentially the enforceable moral code of the state. I do believe that people are ultimately responsible for their own laws but because of propaganda and misinformation by the capitalistic class they are rarely fully informed of the laws they vote for. The capitalistic class ensures to public are constantly misled so their candidates and lawmakers get picked. This ultimately sees the ruling 1% in control of the law and deciding what the state or country considers right or wrong. How much people do you think Biden really represents?
  
  of the State
  Right there is where the disagreement is. My argument is that laws are ultimately a moral code of a people, because a people are ultimately responsible for their state. It's a false dichotomy that misrepresents where states and laws ultimately come from. It 'others' the state as some kind of inaccessible agent that our actions don't contribute to. It removes the moral responsibility of state actions from a people, which is not ok. My argument is that individuals are and need to take responsibility for the state and the codification of its moral because they are us. The state is not a separate entity from its people, when it is a state of the people. This thinking of the state as separate from the people is deeply problematic.
  
  So, what's that say about the law since slavery was completely legal at one point in time?
  
  That once upon a time people considered slavery to be just or morally ok.
- When it comes to actions of government agents, though, following the law is the most basic form of accountability, and unaccountable governments are never good.
  
  You're a fool to think the entity that makes and enforces law will ever hold itself to its rules. Rules and laws are for controlling peasants, not itself.
  
  Ok, kid.
  
  Lol okay dipshit Karen who feels the need to get one over on a kid to win an argument, I'm sure you feel powerful as hell right now
- A philosophical argument that goes all the way back to Socrates.
  
  So-craytes!
- Truth.
- Violation of law most of the times is immoral. There are exceptions of course, but it is quite good guide.

196 comments