Arrogant, uncivil Seattle activists cause more problems than they solve

There’s something unique in Seattle among the self-aggrandizing activist bloggers who like to tell us how much better they are than you and I especially when we dare question their damaging, angry tone. (Otherwise, how would we know!?)

Take for example a post on the Seattlish blog covering a very important issue: Homelessness.

Specifically, how do we get the homeless in a position that’s best for them to get off the street and in a job.

Getting a job can all depend on how you present yourself, which is at the center of what some are pretending is an inexplicable controversy in Ballard.

Neighbors are concerned with a new Urban Rest Stop location proposed at 2014 NW 57th Street. In particular they have one valid concern as to how this will impact the safety of the neighborhood, which is mixed residential and commercial.

As you know, a large number of the homeless population are living with mental health issues and there are others with criminal backgrounds. To me, being concerned with a service that will attract the homeless, which could very likely include potentially dangerous people, seems legitimate and smart.

It doesn’t mean we should determine the future of the Urban Rest Stop based on fear, rational or irrational, but I certainly understand the perspective. The bloggers at Seattlish do not. They write of the neighborhood’s concern, “Which is basically to say: Ick. Noisy. Yucky. Please don’t bring the homeless into the neighborhood.”

In fact, the entire post reeks of this attitude that they’re so much better – and more evolved – than those folks in Ballard.

You see, you’re not allowed to question anything or even see someone else’s perspective, without the typical Seattle activist bloggers trying to bully you into submission. Saying I understand the perspective of folks being uncomfortable with the Urban Rest Stop location, led to this reaction (ranging from silly name calling, incoherent insults, and arrogant dismissal of any potential safety concern):

Yeah – I’m the shock jock on the issue of homelessness. Right.

This rhetoric is so damaging to the community – including when I sometimes stoop to level in responding to snark with snark. Whatever happened to civil conversations among people who disagree? Why is that discouraged? Why is that bullied?

The activists label people NIMBYs (‘not in my backyard’) as a means to insult people who want to tackle homelessness but don’t necessarily want these services offered in their “backyards.” As someone who lived across the street from a temporary Tent City, I can state with certainty that the unintended consequences are off putting. (Like the mentally ill homeless man screaming obscenities at the top of his lungs in the middle of the night from my alleyway.)

No one in western Washington is a proponent of homelessness – we all want to tackle the subject.

It makes sense to be able to hash out ideas and discuss concerns, but too often the automatic reaction is silly and damaging snark based on anger and arrogance from ideologically driven activists who want to see their way 100 percent of the time, even at the expense of someone with a better idea coming to the table.

Is it a bad thing – or the ‘shock jock’ thing to do – by saying you understand a different perspective? Preposterous.

Reject these uncivil activists, ask your questions, air your concerns, and listen to what folks have to say.

We’ll actually get something done while the blogger activists are busy telling each other how much better they are than us.