63 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 128 ms ] thread
People have been talking about an uptick in human feces found on sidewalks and alleyways in San Francisco recently as though the pandemic is causing more people to choose to go on the street or as a signal of increased homelessness. I think what the article is talking about is a much bigger cause.

If you're in SF, try finding a bathroom to use even if you do have money to spend somewhere. Everyone has closed their bathrooms because of COVID protocols -- I have no idea if this something mandated by law, or something that businesses are doing, but it's nearly impossible to find a place to relieve yourself unless you're near a park with a public restroom.

I don't have a lot of confidence that the local government in SF is ready to solve this on their own, but just like homelessness, it's much larger than a one-city problem and hopefully more attention on things like this will help everyone chip away at the issues.

edit: I lived in SF & Oakland from 2013-2019 and Manhattan from late 2019 - now.

The feces problem in SF is exacerbated by opiates. Heavy opiate use causes extreme constipation and opiate withdrawal causes the opposite. Housing and drugs are the top of funnel problems in SF contributing to everything else. New York City seems to not have anywhere near the level of public feces as SOMA / Downtown SF even throughout the pandemic.

Yes. And just to be clear, this was a problem in SF well before the pandemic.
It's not exactly like for like, but compare these maps of available public restrooms in SF and NYC:

- NYC: http://m3.mappler.net/nyrestroom/

- SF: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/viewer?mid=1xRGER_GLPdRdOA...

No disagreement as to the opiate issues in SF exacerbating the problem, but it seems reasonable to think that anyone (drug problem or not) would prefer to use a bathroom than squat on a sidewalk.

Yea I wasn't saying it was the only cause but holy shit I did not know there were that many bathrooms in Manhattan =)
Success of public restroom infrastructure hinges more on how people think of themselves and their fellow humans, and less about actual pee and poop needs. America lucks the requisite social contracts.
(comment deleted)
Or America lacks the requisite janitorial contracts. Can't UberCleans solve this?
Lots of places would like to have public restrooms but the people passing out in them leaving needles all over and wrecking them ruin it for everyone else.
That's another symptom of America's lack of the social contract. If the persons who are charged with governing had any semblance of respect for the human dignity, they not only would build public toilets, but also centres staffed with social workers where the addicted have a place away from the public to inject and where the syringes are safely deposed of.

It's called harm prevention and this is cheaper (both in monetary and human capital) than just ignoring the problems.

IMO he nails it on the head with the Buchwald anecdote.

America has binned the medieval Roman Catholic notion that we are moral agents, which gave rise to the enlightenment, for the older “church knows best” construct.

The church being “free market fiscal economics” manipulated by elites who think they know best. Just like the kings, priests, and barons of old.

If someone with wealth hasn’t decided you are “privy lege” given fiscal trade rules, you don’t get to piss.

> The church being “free market fiscal economics” manipulated by elites who think they know best

This is so wildly fantastic given the size of modern US government and the size of the national debt. We're passing so-called stimulus/relief packages of unprecedented size, expanding the money supply, etc.

The idea that "free market fiscal economics" weighs on US policy at any level is a complete farce. There's no evidence and it's a certainty that liberals and big-government types hold the most power by far in US government and this has been the case for decades.

Limited government and free market ideology has a caucus of maybe 10 people in Congress. All significant legislation is voted firmly against their favor.

I used to have a toilet finding app on my iPod touch when I wandered around Australia a decade or so ago. It was a life saver. The solution is to give phones with toilet apps to everyone
Hey George, the ocean called: it’s running out of shrimp!
So, a cop was fired in Oklahoma for citing a 3-year old with a $2500 fine for public urination. Sounds kinda harsh given that you can't get cops fired even for killing unarmed law-abiding civilians. Wonder what happened there (did he piss off the wrong people?).
It’s because the target was a three year old.

Also, your comparison is way off. Not all police departments are the same. Unarmed doesn’t mean “not a threat” or “can in no way be a threat”. I can simply approach you in an angry manner and be a threat. Does it justify death? No, but a three year old?

> Unarmed doesn’t mean “not a threat”

How much of a threat are the "unarmed law-abiding civilians" in the comment you replied to?

An officer from a well functioning and well trained policeforce would not even shoot to kill a knife wielding attacker. They would at most first shoot a warning shot and then maybe a single shot in the leg if they couldn't stop him with pepperspray or a tazer. An unarmed civilian is most definitely not a threat in any way to a real cop (US police doesn't count as a real cop. They are an embarrassment to police everywhere.)
Warning shots, single shots to the leg, and all less lethal short of 40mm grenade to the head/neck has proven wildly inconsistent at stopping an attacker. Remember the Tueller drill, there is no time for reaction, only action - that means to shoot until the aggressor is incapacitated. This is the time proven way of preventing dead or injured police officers (and civilians!).

It's just that police in Europe and Asia don't really face dangerous and determined criminals.

>It's just that police in Europe and Asia don't really face dangerous and determined criminals.

That's just laughable. People in the US are not more dangerous than people in Europe or Asia. Lots of dangerous individuals get stopped by police without killing them with 41 bullets. What is more dangerous is the police's behaviour, behaving like an occupying force. US police would also rather kill someone trying to escape from s minor offence than let them get away. Different way of thinking. One values lives above killcount.

People in the US are far more likely to be armed than people in Europe or Asia. That in fact makes them more dangerous.
Cops almost never kill law-abiding citizens in the line of duty, so I doubt you'll be able to find much evidence supporting this claim. And no, you're not a law-abiding citizen if you die resisting arrest after committing a DUI.
I guarantee you have broken some laws, even if unwittingly. So you are not a law-abiding citizen, ergo cops can kill you with impunity. Still OK with that?
That doesn't happen which is the point. If it did, the cops would get fired. Pretty much the only time cops kill somebody is when they're resisting arrest after committing a serious crime. All of the high profile police-involved deaths from the last year fit this description:

George Floyd - resisting arrest after committing a DUI, died of fentanyl overdose not police action (confirmed by autopsy + bodycam footage showing him claiming an inability to breathe even before police had started to restrain him).

Rayshard Brooks - DUI, discharged a weapon at a police officer while resisting arrest.

Breonna Taylor - caught in the crossfire after her drug dealer boyfriend opened fire on the police while executing a lawfully obtained warrant.

What is the ultimate point you're trying to make? It sounds like you're trying to defend the actions of the police in these cases, but it's not clear what you're trying to accomplish by doing so. Your version of these events are extremely charitable to the police, and ignore just how badly each situation was botched by law enforcement.

> Breonna Taylor - caught in the crossfire after her drug dealer boyfriend opened fire on the police while executing a lawfully obtained warrant.

This is the last straw with this comment. The police blindly fired rounds into an apartment and killed an innocent woman. The lawfulness of the warrant and the status of her boyfriend have nothing to do with why people are furious or why the raid was unacceptable.

If you find these actions by the police acceptable, I recommend a period of deep introspection and self-reflection. Ask yourself if this is truly the side of this issue you want to align yourself with.

I think a much better question is, if the police raided your house and it turned out they had a warrant, would you be okay with it?

Not to mention the police will take evidence and never return it. They will never reimburse you for the damages (sometimes this will even include medical bills that the police themselves are responsible for causing). And they will sometimes press fake charges in order to pressure you against going public against the police.

Oh, and if they accidentally kill your dog? You'll be lucky if they even apologize.

https://puppycidedb.com/

Her boyfriend was a drug dealer?

You’re telling me what the officer did to George Floyd was ok? That’s what it sounds like.

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The GP comment was egregious flamebait and shouldn't have been posted, but by the above three guidelines, this reply shouldn't have been posted either.

I'm unsure what would happen if I flag something nowadays, and whether it'll mean another shadow vote ban, so I tend just to comment - my opinions are congruent with the mods in this case, but not always. Unfortunately leaving comments like this unchallenged (as it was at the time) also has an impact on the tone of the site.

Sorry for the lowering the tone by responding to this, I do agree it's a somewhat pointless tangent.

This comment has no relevance to anything. "Law-abiding" is not a requirement for life, and police extremely frequently fail to be law-abiding.
First of all, people aren't always resisting when the cops kill them. There have been numerous instances in the past few years that got international attention, so I'm not going to detail these.

Then there is the very obvious problem of SWAT raids, where police regularly get the wrong house! But they still go in with their guns, and sometimes shoot before they ask questions. How would you feel if police broke down your door and pointed assault rifles at you, threatening to kill you if you moved? Also, how would you know they're police? They regularly break down the door and threaten to kill someone before ever announcing that they are the police. And even then, how would you know that they are the police? I'd feel absolutely justified murdering anyone that attacked me like that, I don't give a fuck if it's the pope.

Here's some data you can explore if you want to, though.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/

https://policeviolencereport.org/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/counted-us-police...

> Cops almost never kill law-abiding citizens in the line of duty

That's pretty much true by definition, since an officer killing a law-abiding civilian outside of a very narrow class of reasonable bona fide mistakes of fact is, ipso facto, not properly performing authorized job functions, and therefore not acting in the line of duty.

> you're not a law-abiding citizen if you die resisting arrest

Example one.

> I can't breath.

There are numerous examples happening on a regular basis in the US. They kill US citizens who are not a threat and not resisting all the time.

Covered in a previous comment. Floyd was complaining he couldn't breathe before police even restrained him. The autopsy also showed he had a lethal concentration of fentanyl in his blood. He died of a drug overdose.

Also, the bodycam footage clearly shows him resisting arrest. And the fact that police found him in the driver's seat of a vehicle with fentanyl in his system means he was committing a DUI.

And despite all this, the cop was still fired, so it's still not an example of cops escaping punishment.

So you're wrong on all counts. Try again.

> And despite all this, the cop was still fired, so it's still not an example of cops escaping punishment.

This is a new argument that you didn't make previously and one I was not refuting. I'm not sure why you stated this.

> He died of a drug overdose.

And this is not true no matter how much you downvote me.

https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/...

> Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression

> Manner of death: Homicide

Literally the coroners release states that although he had fentanyl in his system, that did not kill him.

Were the child and his parents white by any chance?
All good points, but I don't understand the title.
“ But the United States is simply not made for people who pee.”

That’s in the 4th or 5th paragraph. That’s the human anatomy the title is referring to.

Shouldn’t the title of the submission match the title of the article? Anatomically correct suggests something very different.
Yes, it should. The submitted title ('America Is Not Made for Anatomically Correct People') broke the site guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Perhaps the submitter thought the title was linkbait, but I don't see it that way and have reverted it now. Generally we try to avoid euphemisms and Bowdlerisms here. It's better to assume that readers are smart enough to handle things for themselves.

anatomically correct: having body parts like those of actual people.

So they are basically saying that America is not made for people who have actual human bodies, that need to pee and poop.

But a person could be "anatomically incorrect" due to an accident or birth defect, and they'd still need to pee and poop.
I agree the title is a bit strange (or misleading) but I think it makes sense after reading the article. I originally thought it would be about overweight people or something along the lines of body image.
I'd love to open up our bathroom to 99% of the public - most of them would leave the bathroom in better condition than they found it.

It's the jerks that ruin the idea.

There is a very simple explanation for this not mentioned in this article: well meaning people have pressured legislators to ban for-pay restrooms, and since not many people feel joy when maintaining a free public restroom, not many restroom remained operating.

[1] https://fee.org/articles/why-is-there-a-shortage-in-public-r...

Pay restrooms won't stop street defecation due to poverty.
I've traveled in europe, asia and africa and the americas and the US by far has the best public restroom infrastructure.
Where did you travel in the US?

If you went to San Francisco or New York, how did you manage your requirements for restroom infrastructure?

I have traveled a lot and I agree completely. As an american I was raised to always expect public facilities but it's very rare.
I don't know where you have traveled but it is the norm to have free public bathrooms and bathrooms in pretty much all businesses open to the public everywhere in Europe I have visited and they were all free and clean.
I’ve traveled extensively in the US since the 70s, and with my wife throughout Western Europe between 1999 and 2006, and back in the US since 2006.

During that time, I found no such public restroom facilities in the US. Paid facilities at gas stations, fast food places, restaurants, and various other businesses, yes. But one way or the other, you always paid for those.

I did see a little bit of public restroom facilities in Europe, and they were okay for what you paid for them. But the paid facilities, especially in France and Belgium near the highways, could be little more than holes in the ground with places to put your feet on the sides. We quickly learned to spot trustworthy businesses like McDonalds and other US companies that would have better paid facilities.

Hotels, conference centers, and the like had better paid restroom facilities than any other places I’ve ever seen before or since, but even movie theaters had Madame Pissoir at the door who could be quite rude and offensive if you were in dire need and would be happy to pay once you were done, but you couldn’t wait.

Even here in the US, we continued to carefully look for McDonalds or Starbucks as a sign that here would be good restroom facilities, and that we would be happy to purchase something there so that we could use their restrooms. At least they were never as rude and offensive as Madame Pissoir.

Where in Europe? Polen maybe, Scandinavia? Not a chance. Their public restrooms are like their prisons: five star luxury hotels compared to what is in the US. And they are free!
To be fair, SF public parks almost all have very decent public bathrooms that are actually maintained. I have been impressed with the ones in GG, Dolores, Holly parks.
The availability of public restrooms in Japan makes travelling there so much easier and less stress. Not only is it possible to go to the toilet, it's a good experience because they keep them so clean. This sends a message that is bigger than just the restroom itself. It tells a tourist (or a resident) they are in a civilised place which acknowledges their humanity.
Not all the restrooms in here in Japan are squeaky clean. Some of the busy Tokyo train station ones are stinky and sticky from urine that splashed on the floor. I have seen some restrooms where the cleaning crew just comes in with a hose and a brush because there is so much urine on the floor. However, 7-11s and the like tend to have really clean restrooms because you're likely to buy something if you can use the restroom and not leave it in haste.
The first time I went to the US (around the year 2000), I was surprised by how difficult it was to find a public restroom. Even malls used to have just a couple of restrooms near the food court.

Also, the restrooms didn't match the expected number of people on the building. As if there's no building code in terms of a public place and number of restrooms that must be available.

I was expecting something similar to an airport which is what most countries do in terms of density of public restrooms, but it was much less (I went to Texas, so other states might have been different)