(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Homemade Dalek chases homeless people in Atlanta.

Comments

[dreamshade.livejournal.com]

'It's a play for public attention for Rufus. He's certainly got a lot of attention - but not the kind we need for housing, living wages,' says Anita Beaty, director of Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless. 'This robot isn't casting attention to the deep, deep poverty in Atlanta.'

Christensen at Georgia Tech agrees. 'He's moving the problem elsewhere,' he says. 'And that works for him, but it's really not solving anything.'

So, wait, it's the bar owner's problem to fucking solve the homeless problem, and not to be able to protect his goddamned bar with an object that doesn't even hurt anyone?

If I have to choose between these douchebags and the water cannon daleks, then I for one welcome our new bum bot overlords.

[kjn]

What is an appropriate strategy for an individual need not be an appropriate strategy for a society.

To take one example here, there are regular demands that more shelters be built for the homeless, or therapy centers for mentally ill people. However, as soon as a nice spot has been found somewhere, the people living nearby start protesting en masse, thus making it even harder for those who could've gotten some treatment there, or forcing them to remain in places which already have severe social troubles.

(See also: private gun ownership.)

[dreamshade.livejournal.com]

Dude's bar was getting repeatedly vandalized, homeless people always sleeping on his doorstep. He invents something to keep them away. He is under no obligation to personally build a goddamned shelter for people. Whether or not people are stupid for being excessively NIMBY about building actual homeless shelters is a strawman - he has a right to kick people off his property.

[kjn]

I can easily imagine him walking around with a rifle chasing people away made lots of people miffed at him, and start vandalising his bar.

We only get a very small part of the story here.

[dreamshade.livejournal.com]

Still is. Not forced. To build. Shelters for anyone.

Still has. Right to. Protect own property.

So maybe he went around sticking guns in people's faces when they didn't deserve it? All right, so he's a dick. It's still his fucking property.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's not his "fucking property".

Emphasis below is mine.

Bar owner Rufus Terrill's invention, the Bum Bot – which has been patrolling the area around the pub since last September – features bright red lights, an even brighter spotlight, an infrared video camera and a water cannon in a spinning turret on top.

Terrill can bark orders through the robot's loudspeaker from the safety of his bar, allowing the robot to chase homeless people away from the Irish theme pub.

Based on images of the pub and the location of the pub, I think it's safe to say that this ain't Porky's, some out of the way bar on acres of land all its own. It butts up against a public park.

This bot is being used outside his pub. It's actually being used ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. The police had the right to tell him to stop brandishing a firearm ON PUBLIC PROPERTY outside his pub, and if people want to protest a remote-control terror device being used ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, I think they have a right to do so.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

That's awesome, though. Do you see the sheer beauty of this argument? He's not fucking individually responsible for the homeless and he certainly doesn't want those bleeding-hearts building them shelters or trying to get them mental help. It's this kind of idea, when paired with the conservative "rugged individualism" ideal, that really just makes the whole homeless situation completely unsolvable.

[dreamshade.livejournal.com]

Hmm, that's odd, I must be linked to a different article. I've looked up and down the one that was linked to me and never found any instance of references to "bleeding hearts" or a dislike toward actual homeless shelters. The only one who says anything about really doing anything with the homeless is some advocate, not the bar owner, who doesn't say a thing about any such policies. He doesn't seem to say anything about going and patrolling the park, either, as it mostly concentrates on its job "to chase homeless people away from the Irish theme pub." It would help if the article actually defined "roam the area," but it doesn't seem to state that he was walking around in the middle of the park brandishing an assault rifle at people. Maybe you could get me the link to that other article when you get back on, k thx.

Of course, if you'd like to get around to telling me how the first step to solving the homeless problem is taking away some guy's little robot with a water gun attached, then I'd entertain that idea as well.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

I admit, it takes some balls to chew me out for reading things past the context of the article while in the same breath continuing to use the term "public property". It's also fairly impressive how you manage to blithely move past the holes pointed out in your own argument while going haring off on new, not-in-the-context-of-the-article-in-question arguments.

Not, sadly, interesting enough for me to continue.

[dreamshade.livejournal.com]

"Public property." You put that in quotation marks and said that I used it in the same breath, so you must be referring to a specific use of the term. Let's see... public property... public property... I didn't use that term. Maybe you're accidentally replying to the wrong comments? Is there a parallel conversation going on that I don't know about?

[dolston.livejournal.com]

I wonder if anyone has introduced him to this song.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Wait, this is still news?