,
6 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
obviously bullshit pretext to harass the homeless credulously repeated by the media across the board b/c when rich people say something it’s taken at face value.
Note: none of these reports explain how these boulders prevent “drug dealing”, 100% of the content is about homeless
Note: none of these reports explain how these boulders prevent “drug dealing”, 100% of the content is about homeless
The goal of course is to conflate homelessness with “drug dealing” to criminalize non criminal activity and incite against a vulnerable population. To the extent there are drugs there’s drug *use* but rounding up people with substance abuse issues just doesn’t sound as wholesome
Notice, again, how homeless people just aren’t seen as people. This early breezy puff piece on the placement of the boulders asserts uniform support for the boulders. That some homeless people may not like them isn’t even entertained much less addressed—they simply aren’t human.
POV is entirely that of “residents”, homeless people are not addressed or interviewed or seen as anything other than a nuisance sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philma…
In local reporting the POV being centered follows a predictable hierarchy
1 Police/DA
2 “Taxpayer”
3 “Business owner”
4 “Homeowner”
5 “Husband/wife”; other signifier of heteronormativity
6 “Resident”
446. homeless person (if reporter is looking for shallow feel good story)
1 Police/DA
2 “Taxpayer”
3 “Business owner”
4 “Homeowner”
5 “Husband/wife”; other signifier of heteronormativity
6 “Resident”
446. homeless person (if reporter is looking for shallow feel good story)
Almost never in stories about homelessness are the homeless centered or given the primary POV. It’s “residents”, “homeowners”, “taxpayers”, “small business owners”. This, from get go, is a deliberate political choice that carries with it tons of unexamined bias and ideology.
