The Left’s Misplaced “Compassion” Destroying Seattle

 

Once again, there is an article (well-written, in my opinion) on the KOMO Web site about the horrible situation outside the King County Courthouse in downtown Seattle.  For over two years, there have been constant stories of street vagrants in downtown assaulting County employees who work at the courthouse.  Across the street is the Downtown Emergency Services Center, which housed a big homeless shelter; those who could not or would not avail themselves of the center’s services simply set up camp in the formerly nice City Hall Park.  With the onset of the COVID-19 shutdowns, the City stopped removing encampments in the park, and the DESC closed (not able to meet “social-distancing” requirements).

County staff are quitting because they are not safe walking around the courthouse area and the City of Seattle has reduced the police budget.  What could go wrong?  How about “everything?”  Who wins?  The homeless who are allowed to camp in the public park, harass the public, and continue to use and sell drugs and guns from their camp.  Who loses?  Everyone else.

Published in Policing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 40 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Our best hope is, I think, that the progressive/woke left will go too far, and people will begin to see what’s happening. Most of America doesn’t want our country to be this way.

    Keep talking.

    • #1
  2. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    I’ve got to say if they have a homeless camp at the county and city hall offices I’m fine with it.

    Lets the idiots in charge get a good look (and smell) of the fruits of their actions.

    • #2
  3. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Sad . . .

    • #3
  4. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Our best hope is, I think, that the progressive/woke left will go too far, and people will begin to see what’s happening. Most of America doesn’t want our country to be this way.

    Keep talking.

    What we need to do is have prominent conservatives voices come out in favor of homeless encampments like this in our major cities.

    Within 24 hours the left will be against them and move to clean them up.

     

    • #4
  5. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    It’s heartbreaking what’s happening to many of America’s great cities, but stupid voting leads to stupid policies. Maybe that will start to sink in, eventually.

    • #5
  6. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Our best hope is, I think, that the progressive/woke left will go too far, and people will begin to see what’s happening. Most of America doesn’t want our country to be this way.

    Keep talking.

    What we need to do is have prominent conservatives voices come out in favor of homeless encampments like this in our major cities.

    Within 24 hours the left will be against them and move to clean them up.

     

    Trolling the left into proper action? It can’t be worse than where we’re at now.

    • #6
  7. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Our best hope is, I think, that the progressive/woke left will go too far, and people will begin to see what’s happening. Most of America doesn’t want our country to be this way.

    Keep talking.

    What we need to do is have prominent conservatives voices come out in favor of homeless encampments like this in our major cities.

    Within 24 hours the left will be against them and move to clean them up.

     

    There’s a certain appeal to that. But there’s always a danger to that kind of thinking, which is that it puts those prominent conservative voices on record as calling for homeless encampments. And that makes it harder for any of us to subsequently criticize homeless encampments, since we’ll have video and quotations of conservative luminaries endorsing them.

    That’s always the problem of doing the bad things the left does in order to show the left how bad it is: it means we do bad things, and that in turn means that we have no credibility when we again condemn those bad things. Better to do and say good things, and not yield to the left’s bad behavior.

    That’s also why I’m uncomfortable with the “nothing wrong with being white” line, even though it’s true and I kind of like it. We should not be making virtue claims, even tepid ones like that, that link right and wrong to color. That’s the left’s game, and we shouldn’t give it any support at all. Individuals are individuals, skin color doesn’t matter, behavior matters.

    • #7
  8. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Our best hope is, I think, that the progressive/woke left will go too far, and people will begin to see what’s happening. Most of America doesn’t want our country to be this way.

    Keep talking.

    What we need to do is have prominent conservatives voices come out in favor of homeless encampments like this in our major cities.

    Within 24 hours the left will be against them and move to clean them up.

     

    There’s a certain appeal to that. But there’s always a danger to that kind of thinking, which is that it puts those prominent conservative voices on record as calling for homeless encampments. And that makes it harder for any of us to subsequently criticize homeless encampments, since we’ll have video and quotations of conservative luminaries endorsing them.

    That’s always the problem of doing the bad things the left does in order to show the left how bad it is: it means we do bad things, and that in turn means that we have no credibility when we again condemn those bad things. Better to do and say good things, and not yield to the left’s bad behavior.

    That’s also why I’m uncomfortable with the “nothing wrong with being white” line, even though it’s true and I kind of like it. We should not be making virtue claims, even tepid ones like that, that link right and wrong to color. That’s the left’s game, and we shouldn’t give it any support at all. Individuals are individuals, skin color doesn’t matter, behavior matters.

    What about copying one of their own phrases?  Seems like “it’s not a crime to be brown/black” is a thing.  Would making that into “it’s not a crime to be white” be so bad?

    • #8
  9. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    In Seattle, their choices of office-holders are limited to Left and Communist.  Only people who are on the far left run for office at all.  Anyone described as “moderate” or “conservative” would be laughed out of the room very early on.  As I have completely disassociated myself from the city, I don’t really care what happens to it now, and I almost hope it turns into a variation on Mad Max.  The people of Seattle deserve what they elect.  Today, the Capitol Hill, Downtown (with its high-rise luxury condo towers that look down on boarded-up businesses), Chinatown-International, SoDo, Ballard, and Green Lake neighborhoods have been basically taken over by homeless camps.  The residents and businesses in those neighborhoods complain continuously to city government, and are ignored.  The Seattle School District refuses to remove a big homeless camp from the perimeter of one of its middle-schools.  The city is getting what it asked for.

    • #9
  10. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    kedavis (View Comment):
    What about copying one of their own phrases?  Seems like “it’s not a crime to be brown/black” is a thing.  Would making that into “it’s not a crime to be white” be so bad?

    Again, I find it appealing, but still think it’s a bad move, for the reason I stated: we shouldn’t give any lip service to the idea that color enters into this discussion. Our response should be (in my opinion): “Why are you talking about skin color? We don’t care about skin color. People are individuals. Racists obsess about color. We just don’t care.”

    • #10
  11. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    What about copying one of their own phrases? Seems like “it’s not a crime to be brown/black” is a thing. Would making that into “it’s not a crime to be white” be so bad?

    Again, I find it appealing, but still think it’s a bad move, for the reason I stated: we shouldn’t give any lip service to the idea that color enters into this discussion. Our response should be (in my opinion): “Why are you talking about skin color? We don’t care about skin color. People are individuals. Racists obsess about color. We just don’t care.”

    But “back-fires” can be effective, and sometimes are the only thing that really works.

    • #11
  12. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    What about copying one of their own phrases? Seems like “it’s not a crime to be brown/black” is a thing. Would making that into “it’s not a crime to be white” be so bad?

    Again, I find it appealing, but still think it’s a bad move, for the reason I stated: we shouldn’t give any lip service to the idea that color enters into this discussion. Our response should be (in my opinion): “Why are you talking about skin color? We don’t care about skin color. People are individuals. Racists obsess about color. We just don’t care.”

    But “back-fires” can be effective, and sometimes are the only thing that really works.

    Yes. And I know people have different views. It’s probably largely a matter of taste.

    This reminds me of discussion I had with people leading up to the 2020 election. Some anti-Trump folk argued that a loss now would be better in the long run, since it would allow the conservative movement to rebuild without the tension of a divisive man in the White House. I understood the argument, but thought — and still think — that, when the situation is ambiguous, it’s best to just take the win right now, and hope that works out for the best. The idea that electing Joe Biden could be in our long-term best interests just seemed too speculative, like a chess gambit that gives up too much in hopes that the opponent will make an easily avoidable mistake.

    Put differently: bet on first-order effects, not hoped-for second-order effects.

    I think similar thoughts as regards maintaining the moral high ground. I think it’s in our best interests to do so, because it isn’t obvious that doing otherwise won’t result in a race to the bottom, with us complicit in it.

    But it’s complicated, and I understand why some think it better to engage the enemy on his own terms. I’d just rather engage our opponents on our own terms, but enthusiastically.

    • #12
  13. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I understood the argument, but thought — and still think — that, when the situation is ambiguous, it’s best to just take the win right now, and hope that works out for the best. The idea that electing Joe Biden could be in our long-term best interests just seemed too speculative, like a chess gambit that gives up too much in hopes that the opponent will make an easily avoidable mistake.

    Put differently: bet on first-order effects, not hoped-for second-order effects.

    I think similar thoughts as regards maintaining the moral high ground. I think it’s in our best interests to do so, because it isn’t obvious that doing otherwise won’t result in a race to the bottom, with us complicit in it.

    That reads like hoping the other side won’t continue to do their worst,  perhaps even increasingly so, as long as we maintain the high road.  Which sounds like hoping they won’t make an easily avoidable mistake.  And that suggests that your preferred option doesn’t actually follow your own advice.

    • #13
  14. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    “Why are you talking about skin color? We don’t care about skin color. People are individuals. Racists obsess about color. We just don’t care.”

    It’s worked so well thus far.,.

    • #14
  15. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I understood the argument, but thought — and still think — that, when the situation is ambiguous, it’s best to just take the win right now, and hope that works out for the best. The idea that electing Joe Biden could be in our long-term best interests just seemed too speculative, like a chess gambit that gives up too much in hopes that the opponent will make an easily avoidable mistake.

    Put differently: bet on first-order effects, not hoped-for second-order effects.

    I think similar thoughts as regards maintaining the moral high ground. I think it’s in our best interests to do so, because it isn’t obvious that doing otherwise won’t result in a race to the bottom, with us complicit in it.

    That reads like hoping the other side won’t continue to do their worst, perhaps even increasingly so, as long as we maintain the high road. Which sounds like hoping they won’t make an easily avoidable mistake. And that suggests that your preferred option doesn’t actually follow your own advice.

    A lot of people — perhaps most people — share your view. Part of it may be in our sense of what it means to “win.” In 2020, I thought winning was keeping the White House. I liked the job our President was doing, and was hoping for four more years of it.

    When it comes to free speech, honest debate, racism, and things like that, “winning” to me is not being on the wrong side of important things we value. So I’m opposed to standing against free speech or honest debate, and I’m in favor of opposing racism — and not compromising on any of those things simply in hopes of winning a fight, because we lose the moment we act like our opponents, even if it might give us the upper hand for a moment.

    I guess that’s the point. I don’t want to use racist language, even to show them what it’s like. I don’t mind mocking, ridiculing, and aggressively criticizing the woke. I just don’t want to do it by any of their rules. And I don’t think we have to in order to win.

    • #15
  16. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Stina (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    “Why are you talking about skin color? We don’t care about skin color. People are individuals. Racists obsess about color. We just don’t care.”

    It’s worked so well thus far.,.

    Same thing I say every time this comes up: we have barely started.

    I can count on one hand the number of people I know who are willing to say out loud that BLM is a corrupt and dishonest organization — even if they believe it’s true.

    In fact, and this floored me when I discovered it’s true, most people I’ve talked to about it in real life aren’t even familiar with the term “woke.”

    Most people just don’t care about this stuff. But that will change as the progressives get more oppressive — as they seem inclined to do.

    • #16
  17. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I understood the argument, but thought — and still think — that, when the situation is ambiguous, it’s best to just take the win right now, and hope that works out for the best. The idea that electing Joe Biden could be in our long-term best interests just seemed too speculative, like a chess gambit that gives up too much in hopes that the opponent will make an easily avoidable mistake.

    Put differently: bet on first-order effects, not hoped-for second-order effects.

    I think similar thoughts as regards maintaining the moral high ground. I think it’s in our best interests to do so, because it isn’t obvious that doing otherwise won’t result in a race to the bottom, with us complicit in it.

    That reads like hoping the other side won’t continue to do their worst, perhaps even increasingly so, as long as we maintain the high road. Which sounds like hoping they won’t make an easily avoidable mistake. And that suggests that your preferred option doesn’t actually follow your own advice.

    A lot of people — perhaps most people — share your view. Part of it may be in our sense of what it means to “win.” In 2020, I thought winning was keeping the White House. I liked the job our President was doing, and was hoping for four more years of it.

    When it comes to free speech, honest debate, racism, and things like that, “winning” to me is not being on the wrong side of important things we value. So I’m opposed to standing against free speech or honest debate, and I’m in favor of opposing racism — and not compromising on any of those things simply in hopes of winning a fight, because we lose the moment we act like our opponents, even if it might give us the upper hand for a moment.

    I guess that’s the point. I don’t want to use racist language, even to show them what it’s like. I don’t mind mocking, ridiculing, and aggressively criticizing the woke. I just don’t want to do it by any of their rules. And I don’t think we have to in order to win.

    Have you read any of the posts/comments about that “game theory” thing about how “playing nice” leads to losing?

    • #17
  18. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I guess that’s the point. I don’t want to use racist language, even to show them what it’s like.

    It isn’t racist language. And I think something is seriously wrong on your racism calibration if you think it is. It’s ok that God made us the color we are. Nothing racist there. 

    Did you let the woke play with your racism calibration? It needs checking.

    • #18
  19. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Most people just don’t care about this stuff. But that will change as the progressives get more oppressive — as they seem inclined to do

    I’m not saying going around and announcing to all and sundry. I think it’s necessary to combat crt in schools for me to tell my kids a simplistic slogan built on top of sound teaching that they are not to be ashamed of their skin color.

    I am saying it’s a totally legitimate response to CRT seminars and when you do find yourself in a conversation with an ostensible racist saying white people are evil without irony.

    • #19
  20. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Stina (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I guess that’s the point. I don’t want to use racist language, even to show them what it’s like.

    It isn’t racist language. And I think something is seriously wrong on your racism calibration if you think it is. It’s ok that God made us the color we are. Nothing racist there.

    Did you let the woke play with your racism calibration? It needs checking.

    I’m informed by no less an authority than Sesame Street that “The color of our skin is an important part of who we are”.  If that’s true for Blacks, it’s true for Whites.

     

     

     

    • #20
  21. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Stina (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I guess that’s the point. I don’t want to use racist language, even to show them what it’s like.

    It isn’t racist language. And I think something is seriously wrong on your racism calibration if you think it is. It’s ok that God made us the color we are. Nothing racist there.

    Did you let the woke play with your racism calibration? It needs checking.

    Yeah, I probably have a simplistic model when it comes to race: color is insignificant and I have no interest in invoking it as part of any kind of slogan or platitude. Not white, not black, not red, not yellow. Not good, not bad.

    I know some people think differently. That’s fine.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Have you read any of the posts/comments about that “game theory” thing about how “playing nice” leads to losing?

    I haven’t suggested that we “play nice,” any more than you’ve suggested that we burn down stores and kill people, just like the woke mobs did throughout 2020. (I mean, I assume you’re not suggesting that.) I just don’t want to compromise my own personal principles in order to engage the enemy. I don’t think that’s required.

    That still leaves lots of room to cause offense, to defend myself, to draw attention to thing, and to meet our opponents head-on. I can do that without behaving in a way I personally find objectionable.

    After all, why should I let my opponent define the terms of the engagement and the rules by which I have to play?

    • #21
  22. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I guess that’s the point. I don’t want to use racist language, even to show them what it’s like.

    It isn’t racist language. And I think something is seriously wrong on your racism calibration if you think it is. It’s ok that God made us the color we are. Nothing racist there.

    Did you let the woke play with your racism calibration? It needs checking.

    I’m informed by no less an authority than Sesame Street that “The color of our skin is an important part of who we are”. If that’s true for Blacks, it’s true for Whites.

     

     

     

    Sesame Street is so fake.  Everyone knows that black fathers aren’t around.  The boy should be with his single mother, and her other children.

    • #22
  23. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I guess that’s the point. I don’t want to use racist language, even to show them what it’s like.

    It isn’t racist language. And I think something is seriously wrong on your racism calibration if you think it is. It’s ok that God made us the color we are. Nothing racist there.

    Did you let the woke play with your racism calibration? It needs checking.

    Yeah, I probably have a simplistic model when it comes to race: color is insignificant and I have no interest in invoking it as part of any kind of slogan or platitude. Not white, not black, not red, not yellow. Not good, not bad.

    I know some people think differently. That’s fine.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Have you read any of the posts/comments about that “game theory” thing about how “playing nice” leads to losing?

    I haven’t suggested that we “play nice,” any more than you’ve suggested that we burn down stores and kill people, just like the woke mobs did throughout 2020. (I mean, I assume you’re not suggesting that.) I just don’t want to compromise my own personal principles in order to engage the enemy. I don’t think that’s required.

    That still leaves lots of room to cause offense, to defend myself, to draw attention to thing, and to meet our opponents head-on. I can do that without behaving in a way I personally find objectionable.

    After all, why should I let my opponent define the terms of the engagement and the rules by which I have to play?

    The “game theory” issue suggests that if we let them “play the race card” over and over, without – in effect – playing our own, we’re letting them win.  And doing so foolishly.

    • #23
  24. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I guess that’s the point. I don’t want to use racist language, even to show them what it’s like.

    It isn’t racist language. And I think something is seriously wrong on your racism calibration if you think it is. It’s ok that God made us the color we are. Nothing racist there.

    Did you let the woke play with your racism calibration? It needs checking.

    I’m informed by no less an authority than Sesame Street that “The color of our skin is an important part of who we are”. If that’s true for Blacks, it’s true for Whites.

    Man, I hope that isn’t a legitimate clip. I’ll be skeptical until I see evidence that it’s real.

    In any case, your comment is a perfect example of the actual meaning of the phrase “begging the question.”

    I’m informed by no less an authority than Sesame Street that “The color of our skin is an important part of who we are”. If that’s true for Blacks, it’s true for Whites.

    But it isn’t true for black people, nor for white people.

    • #24
  25. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    kedavis (View Comment):
    The “game theory” issue suggests that if we let them “play the race card” over and over, without – in effect – playing our own, we’re letting them win.  And doing so foolishly.

    What does “let them” mean? Does it mean let them do it without rebuke or opposition? Or does it mean let them do it without us doing it as well? In other words, do we have to do what they do in order to oppose them doing something?

    That takes us back to mobs and riots. Do we have to do that, too, in order to avoid “letting” them do it?

    I think you’re being too quick to let our adversaries make the rules.

    • #25
  26. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    But it isn’t true for black people, nor for white people.

    Only boomer whites believe that. No one else does, least of all any black person in this country.

    • #26
  27. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Stina (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    But it isn’t true for black people, nor for white people.

    Only boomer whites believe that. No one else does, least of all any black person in this country.

    But I believe it, and I’m not going to say things I don’t believe or that I think are wrong-minded, any more than I’m going to use someone else’s made-up pronouns. But, again, it’s okay for us to disagree.

    • #27
  28. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    The “game theory” issue suggests that if we let them “play the race card” over and over, without – in effect – playing our own, we’re letting them win. And doing so foolishly.

    What does “let them” mean? Does it mean let them do it without rebuke or opposition? Or does it mean let them do it without us doing it as well? In other words, do we have to do what they do in order to oppose them doing something?

    That takes us back to mobs and riots. Do we have to do that, too, in order to avoid “letting” them do it?

    I think you’re being too quick to let our adversaries make the rules.

    Well, maybe that means that they’ll win, in the end.

    • #28
  29. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Er…..  I don’t recall there being anything about race in the OP. And, to my knowledge the vast majority of the homeless in Seattle are white. 

    • #29
  30. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Er….. I don’t recall there being anything about race in the OP. And, to my knowledge the vast majority of the homeless in Seattle are white.

    I was thinking this too. I had to scroll up to make sure I was on the right thread. 😁

    • #30