I don’t understand why I do find certain kinds of goodness, kindness, compassion annoying. Of all the publications, The Guardians seems to rank highest in pissing me off with kindness. Consider this:
Ocean Howell, a former skateboarder and assistant professor of architectural history at the University of Oregon, who studies such anti-skating design, says it reveals wider processes of power. “Architectural deterrents to skateboarding and sleeping are interesting because – when noticed – they draw attention to the way that managers of spaces are always designing for specific subjects of the population, consciously or otherwise,” he says. “When we talk about the ‘public’, we’re never actually talking about ‘everyone’.”
Does anyone have any idea why may I find it annoying? Putting it differently, why do I experience something similar as Scott i.e. while I don’t have many problems with most contemporary left-leaning ideas, I seem to have a problem with left-leaning people?
For example, I don’t find anything inherently bad about starting a discussion about making design more skateboarder-friendly, or less directly skateboarder-hostile, I think skateboarders providing free entertainment to bystanders is kind of a win-win.
And I still feel like slapping Mr. Howell around with a large trout. But why?
Clearly it must be something about the style? Pretentious? Condescending?
Problem is, my emotions prevent me from analysing this clearly. But as far as I see it, the issue with the style is roughly this algorithm
assume very high level of compassion and altruism (public spaces are literally designed for everyone)
look sad or scandalized when you pretend to be surprised it is not so
Well, to use this example, we always knew it is not so. Clean, bourgeois middle-class folks never wanted e.g. homeless, amputee beggars, or other undesirables near where they live. I am not even ashamed about this, I don’t find it incompatible to wish that they should get treated well, but somewhere I cannot see them much. It is not my eyesight is what they need most but more like professional care. I just wasn’t aware skateboarders are also included in the category of undesirables. Anyway, the way I can best parse my emotions is that I find Mr. Howell condesdencing or pretentious because he is pretending to be surprised we are not saints. And this seems to be general tone of The Guardian, that may be why it annoys me.
Any better takers?
People of more or less explicit left-wing views: do you see your goals would better supported by, how to put, it less drama, or less pretense, or less antagonizing or trying to guilt-trip others, so I don’t know, with a different tone than that of The Guardian or Salon.com? I cannot really express this better, but what I have in mind is more of a e.g. “please discuss why the homeless annoy you so much that you want to install spikes” tone, and less of a “fuck you for being a cruel monster who installs anti-homeless spikes” tone, do you find that counter-productive?
OTOH it is also possible that I find it annoying because it it actually pierces my conscience. But I actually don’t think so. I never really considered perfect 200% compassion a super ace that trumps all other cards. It is one of the aces, sure, but there are other aces and also kings and whatnot in the stack. Maybe, it is annoying because it reminds me of a social expectation, certain social taboos, like, never feel grossed out by e.g. the homeless, because they suffer and the only proper reaction to suffering is compassion, those kinds of taboos.
The problem is he starts with false premises that it is impermissible (or at least impolite) to question in public, such as that homeless people are perfectly normal people who are down on their luck. (Most homeless, especially long time homeless have a mental illness.) And then he proceeds to reason from them and expects people to agree.
(Most homeless, especially long time homeless have a mental illness.) And then he proceeds to reason from them and expects people to agree.
Cite? My assumption is that the proportion of homeless people who are normal people down on their luck is much higher when the economy has been bad for a while.
I think I dislike this sort of articles because they assume I’m a stupid mark easily to manipulate by crude emotional-blackmail methods. AND the author is someone who thinks that manipulating other people this way is an excellent idea.
Why even read left wing articles if they upset you?
My take is that if the public space was skateboarder and homeless friendly, the author could easily write a similar article on how that scares [insert other victim group] away from the public space.
As for why it is written that way, Kling’s book The Three Languages of Politics is a good explanation. The left likes to think in oppressed verses oppressor terms.
Thanks for posting this article. There is a park being planned near me and there are certain architectural features I now want it to consider …
My take is that if the public space was skateboarder and homeless friendly, the author could easily write a similar article on how that scares [insert other victim group] away from the public space.
There a difference between not designing for being homeless friendly and designing spikes to prevent homeless people from sleeping in the area.
What’s the difference? (This is a serious question. Of course, I know some reasons why people think they are different, but I don’t think the reasons that I can think of stand up to examination.)
If you design a system, then you can optimize it for different goals. A designer that’s supposed to design a public space signs a contract. To the extend that the designer optimizes for different goals and especially goals that disadvantage certain people he’s doing wrong.
From the perspective of a city written into the contract that the space is designed against homelessness also makes a difference.
That only moves the question up a level: why is it wrong to do X as your goal, but okay to do X in service of something else, even if that something else is as vague as aesthetic reasons or whatever impels people to randomly design things? By your initial reasoning, it would be wrong to design spikes to discourage the homeless, but okay to design spikes if you just happen to like the look of spikes, even though both of these have the same effect.
why is it wrong to do X as your goal, but okay to do X in service of something else
Because intentions matter for judge morality of a lot of human interactions. If a professional is hired for a specific purpose, it’s important that the professional doesn’t use the power of his role to push his personal agenda.
The spikes make the place worse for the intended users than it would be if the designers just ignored the homeless in this place and build a better place for them nearby.
That doesn’t explain the difference. Just ignoring the homeless can include building things that happen to discourage the homeless but are put there for other reasons. If so, then ignoring them and being hostile to them can produce the same result.
Anyway, the way I can best parse my emotions is that I find Mr. Howell condesdencing or pretentious because he is pretending to be surprised we are not saints.
“We” is a bad word. “We” don’t design public spaces. Certain architects do. Those architects do engage in certain rhetoric. They also do promise certain things to governments who hire them to build public spaces.
Congratulations on seeing a case where your emotions may mislead you. Now, what makes you think the author of that article “is pretending to be surprised we are not saints”? Looking at it, I get the exact opposite impression—he starts off by saying,
There was something heartening about the indignation expressed by Londoners this week against the “anti-homeless” spikes placed outside a luxury block of flats in Southwark.
suggesting that he finds their reaction surprising. So if anything, his article gives me a sense of self-satisfied cynicism, learnedly explaining to such people how the world works and why he thinks their indignation is rare.
Were I uncharitable, I could read your own (parent) comment as showing off cynicism in the exact same way.
I don’t understand why I do find certain kinds of goodness, kindness, compassion annoying. Of all the publications, The Guardians seems to rank highest in pissing me off with kindness. Consider this:
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jun/12/anti-homeless-spikes-latest-defensive-urban-architecture
Does anyone have any idea why may I find it annoying? Putting it differently, why do I experience something similar as Scott i.e. while I don’t have many problems with most contemporary left-leaning ideas, I seem to have a problem with left-leaning people?
For example, I don’t find anything inherently bad about starting a discussion about making design more skateboarder-friendly, or less directly skateboarder-hostile, I think skateboarders providing free entertainment to bystanders is kind of a win-win.
And I still feel like slapping Mr. Howell around with a large trout. But why?
Clearly it must be something about the style? Pretentious? Condescending?
Problem is, my emotions prevent me from analysing this clearly. But as far as I see it, the issue with the style is roughly this algorithm
assume very high level of compassion and altruism (public spaces are literally designed for everyone)
look sad or scandalized when you pretend to be surprised it is not so
Well, to use this example, we always knew it is not so. Clean, bourgeois middle-class folks never wanted e.g. homeless, amputee beggars, or other undesirables near where they live. I am not even ashamed about this, I don’t find it incompatible to wish that they should get treated well, but somewhere I cannot see them much. It is not my eyesight is what they need most but more like professional care. I just wasn’t aware skateboarders are also included in the category of undesirables. Anyway, the way I can best parse my emotions is that I find Mr. Howell condesdencing or pretentious because he is pretending to be surprised we are not saints. And this seems to be general tone of The Guardian, that may be why it annoys me.
Any better takers?
People of more or less explicit left-wing views: do you see your goals would better supported by, how to put, it less drama, or less pretense, or less antagonizing or trying to guilt-trip others, so I don’t know, with a different tone than that of The Guardian or Salon.com? I cannot really express this better, but what I have in mind is more of a e.g. “please discuss why the homeless annoy you so much that you want to install spikes” tone, and less of a “fuck you for being a cruel monster who installs anti-homeless spikes” tone, do you find that counter-productive?
OTOH it is also possible that I find it annoying because it it actually pierces my conscience. But I actually don’t think so. I never really considered perfect 200% compassion a super ace that trumps all other cards. It is one of the aces, sure, but there are other aces and also kings and whatnot in the stack. Maybe, it is annoying because it reminds me of a social expectation, certain social taboos, like, never feel grossed out by e.g. the homeless, because they suffer and the only proper reaction to suffering is compassion, those kinds of taboos.
The problem is he starts with false premises that it is impermissible (or at least impolite) to question in public, such as that homeless people are perfectly normal people who are down on their luck. (Most homeless, especially long time homeless have a mental illness.) And then he proceeds to reason from them and expects people to agree.
Cite? My assumption is that the proportion of homeless people who are normal people down on their luck is much higher when the economy has been bad for a while.
I think I dislike this sort of articles because they assume I’m a stupid mark easily to manipulate by crude emotional-blackmail methods. AND the author is someone who thinks that manipulating other people this way is an excellent idea.
Why even read left wing articles if they upset you?
My take is that if the public space was skateboarder and homeless friendly, the author could easily write a similar article on how that scares [insert other victim group] away from the public space.
As for why it is written that way, Kling’s book The Three Languages of Politics is a good explanation. The left likes to think in oppressed verses oppressor terms.
Thanks for posting this article. There is a park being planned near me and there are certain architectural features I now want it to consider …
There a difference between not designing for being homeless friendly and designing spikes to prevent homeless people from sleeping in the area.
What’s the difference? (This is a serious question. Of course, I know some reasons why people think they are different, but I don’t think the reasons that I can think of stand up to examination.)
If you design a system, then you can optimize it for different goals. A designer that’s supposed to design a public space signs a contract. To the extend that the designer optimizes for different goals and especially goals that disadvantage certain people he’s doing wrong.
From the perspective of a city written into the contract that the space is designed against homelessness also makes a difference.
That only moves the question up a level: why is it wrong to do X as your goal, but okay to do X in service of something else, even if that something else is as vague as aesthetic reasons or whatever impels people to randomly design things? By your initial reasoning, it would be wrong to design spikes to discourage the homeless, but okay to design spikes if you just happen to like the look of spikes, even though both of these have the same effect.
Because intentions matter for judge morality of a lot of human interactions. If a professional is hired for a specific purpose, it’s important that the professional doesn’t use the power of his role to push his personal agenda.
The spikes make the place worse for the intended users than it would be if the designers just ignored the homeless in this place and build a better place for them nearby.
That doesn’t explain the difference. Just ignoring the homeless can include building things that happen to discourage the homeless but are put there for other reasons. If so, then ignoring them and being hostile to them can produce the same result.
upvote for noticing a (possibly) uncharitable reaction in yourself and taking steps to do better.
“We” is a bad word. “We” don’t design public spaces. Certain architects do. Those architects do engage in certain rhetoric. They also do promise certain things to governments who hire them to build public spaces.
Congratulations on seeing a case where your emotions may mislead you. Now, what makes you think the author of that article “is pretending to be surprised we are not saints”? Looking at it, I get the exact opposite impression—he starts off by saying,
suggesting that he finds their reaction surprising. So if anything, his article gives me a sense of self-satisfied cynicism, learnedly explaining to such people how the world works and why he thinks their indignation is rare.
Were I uncharitable, I could read your own (parent) comment as showing off cynicism in the exact same way.