Real tech worker says SF homeless "grotesque," "degenerates," "trash"

|
(222)
Photo by freelancer Aurelien Foucault

Just a day after a fake tech worker blew up the Internet with class hatred, an actual tech worker spewed hatred for real -- and it’s worse than anything that our political thespian had to say.

As first reported by tech blog Valleywag, AngelHack founder and CEO Greg Gopman posted this gem on his Facebook yesterday: 

Just got back to SF. I've traveled around the world and I gotta say there is nothing more grotesque than walking down market st in San Francisco. Why the heart of our city has to be overrun by crazy, homeless, drug dealers, dropouts, and trash I have no clue. Each time I pass it my love affair with SF dies a little.

He has since deleted the post and apologized, but it’s hard to come back from the rest of what he wrote: 

The difference is in other cosmopolitan cities, the lower part of society keep to themselves. They sell small trinkets, beg coyly, stay quiet, and generally stay out of your way. They realize it's a privilege to be in the civilized part of town and view themselves as guests. And that's okay. 

In downtown SF the degenerates gather like hyenas, spit, urinate, taunt you, sell drugs, get rowdy, they act like they own the center of the city. Like it's their place of leisure... In actuality it's the business district for one of the wealthiest cities in the USA. It a disgrace. I don't even feel safe walking down the sidewalk without planning out my walking path. 

You can preach compassion, equality, and be the biggest lover in the world, but there is an area of town for degenerates and an area of town for the working class. There is nothing positive gained from having them so close to us. It's a burden and a liability having them so close to us. Believe me, if they added the smallest iota of value I'd consider thinking different, but the crazy toothless lady who kicks everyone that gets too close to her cardboard box hasn't made anyone's life better in a while.

Emphasis added by Valleywag. The Internet machine didn’t take long in shaming him. Cue social media shaming in  3, 2, 1….

The plot thickens, though, as it appears AngelHack has a Twitter bot that scours the Internet for anyone writing about the company, and instantly retweets them. 

It’s already retweeted many of the hate tweets towards Gopman. His own company is throwing fuel in the flames of his Internet hate. 

This is his apology, written just this morning:

Last night, I made inappropriate comments about San Francisco and its less fortunate citizens on Market st. I'm really sorry for my comments. I trivialized the plight of those struggling to get by and I shouldn't have. I hope this thread can help start an open discussion on what changes we can make to fix these serious problems. Again, I am deeply sorry.

It’s this kind of class hatred from tech workers that made performances like that of union organizer Max Bell Alper yesterday totally believable, leading to one important question: Can you hack empathy? 

Comments

The SF homeless population often are disgusting. It's a huge problem and pretending it isn't one helps nobody.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 11, 2013 @ 12:07 pm

I agree. The homeless problem here is getting completely out of hand. Public safety workers offer them shelter and services and the majority of the homeless simply refuse. Instead, they use our parks as their home, the bushes as their toilets and they aggressively pan handle. They make excuses for not accepting the City's help.

San Francisco Government and their citizen's have to stop enabling the homeless by "giving" them food, housing, free clipper cards, clothing, needles etc... the City should stop accepting Federal funding for the homeless.

Until then, I say we should direct all of the homeless to the nice manicured park in front of City Hall and have them camp out there so the Mayor could see what the citizen's of San Francisco sees in their neighborhood parks and sidewalks.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 12, 2013 @ 10:55 am

They used to camp there, but the overpaid enablers in City hall did not want to have to look at them....so they were "displaced"

Posted by Guest on Dec. 17, 2013 @ 9:23 am

WTF? stop providing housing to the homeless? Somehow I don't get it.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 28, 2013 @ 12:29 pm

Yes, I have to clean poo from my driveway on occasion and I don't like it. However, I do not think we should segregate all the homeless low income people to one part of the city. Let's talk about the lack of a real social safety net in our country and why other cities need to bus the homeless to San Francisco. Let's talk about the outrageously low corporate tax rates that all these interest IPOs are not paying. Let's talk about the fact that we still incarcerate people for smoking pot. Or we can be this a-hole and just want to move them all out of sight.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 8:41 am

Yes, I have to clean poo from my driveway on occasion and I don't like it. However, I do not think we should segregate all the homeless low income people to one part of the city. Let's talk about the lack of a real social safety net in our country and why other cities need to bus the homeless to San Francisco. Let's talk about the outrageously low corporate tax rates that all these interest IPOs are not paying. Let's talk about the fact that we still incarcerate people for smoking pot. Or we can be this a-hole and just want to move them all out of sight.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 8:41 am

Yes, I have to clean poo from my driveway on occasion and I don't like it. However, I do not think we should segregate all the homeless low income people to one part of the city. Let's talk about the lack of a real social safety net in our country and why other cities need to bus the homeless to San Francisco. Let's talk about the outrageously low corporate tax rates that all these interest IPOs are not paying. Let's talk about the fact that we still incarcerate people for smoking pot. Or we can be this a-hole and just want to move them all out of sight.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 8:41 am

They can consume more than you can tax and borrow. And it just attracts more and more of them.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 9:07 am

Excellent point Guest.

Everybody knows it's preferable to throw money at people who already have tons of it.

Posted by Binky Portugal on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 10:19 am

Expanding the balance sheet and dropping the new money from helicopters has not worked either.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 11:02 am

or the Zillow valuation of your condo.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 11:21 am

Cocaine works as well, as does crystal meth until it runs out.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 11:35 am
Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 2:48 pm

You are lucky to have the opportunity to buy a condo. The majority of San Francisco residents don't have that chance.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 2:42 pm

indirectly contributing to the increasing unaffordability of the Mission for low income people of color.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 2:49 pm

http://sf.blockshopper.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%22Marilyn+Morales%22&classes[]=Sale

Posted by marcos on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 1:18 pm
Posted by Guest on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 1:28 pm

Your racism presumed that a woman with a Latino surname was poor and displaced when she was really one of you all along.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 9:41 pm
Posted by Guest on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 1:34 pm

The VA Loan limit in San Francisco is $987,500. Serve a tour of duty in the military and then you can afford a very nice San Francisco condo.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 12:28 pm

On that VA loan of almost $1million? Most people still could not afford a condo in SF. Get real.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 2:18 pm
Posted by Guest on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 2:42 pm

Shows how Gopmans classism could not just be an isolated incident. Not many people in this country have $700,000 in cash to buy a condo. It's insane if you think about it.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 15, 2013 @ 8:14 am

It is about $4000/mo. Adding in taxes and insurance around $5000/mo.

While it is true that this is more than the median family income can afford, it is something that two adults with middle class jobs can afford. Two Muni bus drivers for example. Two schoolteachers. A construction worker and a nurse.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 15, 2013 @ 10:00 am

Do you have any idea how much teachers or bus drivers actually take home after healthcare, retirement etc? $5000 a month would be way over 50% of their combined take home income. People still need money for things like food, clothes, education, etc. The problem is that people like you and Gopman are completely divorced from the realities that middle class San Franciscans face.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 15, 2013 @ 1:18 pm

I actually do know, I am buying a $700,000 house on a combined family income of $140,000/yr. It used to be less, under $120,000.

So I know it can be done because I have done it.

$120,000 - $20,000 taxes = $100,000 - $60,000 = $40,000 to live on plus savings

That is $3,333 a month for food, car payments, vacations, etc.

That is enough. Take on a border like we did and you can even put something aside. Most people just don't want to sacrifice for the future, they want to spend everything today and then complain about how unfair life is.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 15, 2013 @ 5:23 pm

Seriously, you are arguing that most families have a combined income of $120-140,000!? Reality is right outside your door, go talk to people and see what they say. You are doing very well and can purchase a home when most people cannot. (And you pay extremely low taxes for $140,000)

Posted by Guest on Dec. 15, 2013 @ 8:47 pm

"I know this is a bit more than median family income" go up there and see that.

Median family income is $87,000. But as I said, two hard working middle class incomes can still barely buy a house. Though anymore, it is a tiny place in the Outer Sunset or maybe The Excelsior or Ingleside.

Your taxes go way down when you have a huge mortgage.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 15, 2013 @ 9:42 pm

You make waaaay more than the average San Franciscan.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 16, 2013 @ 5:06 pm

the average home. For every home to sell at current prices it is only necessary that there are ENOUGH people who can afford it. And there clearly are.

That is why 2/3 of SF'ers rent, because only the top third can afford to buy. But afford to buy, they most definitely can.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 16, 2013 @ 5:19 pm

That is about 13/14 times the average family income. And yet they sell ni days with multiple offers over asking.

The average worker shlub may not be able to afford the average home, but there are plenty of people who can.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 16, 2013 @ 5:35 pm

not everyone can go serve the country for 1 tour. some people are disabled and even refuse disability. also your idea that everyone should just get a loan is flawed. do you really think building debt right now is smart? not everyone want's to have a million dollars in debt and not everyone coming out of the military is equipped with the skills to pay that loan off. you do realize how many hours you would have to work to pay off that debt right? unless you become quite successful it will take most of your life to pay off. i'd rather live my life for fun than to pay off a loan.

Posted by dr. seussicide on Dec. 28, 2013 @ 9:49 am

We were more than fortunate, except that we had to deal with two years of increasing abusive harassment from the American Indian Friendship House drug treatment center leading up to our eventual eviction and compensation from City affordable housing bond proceeds that funded an inpatient drug treatment center that got us over the down payment hump.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 1:14 pm

gone to a low-income family and, by so doing, caused housing price inflation and gentrification in the Mission

Posted by Guest on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 1:29 pm

You self righteous ass. If given the opportunity, you would not buy a home in sf? Would you fret that you might be taking up space someone needier than you could use, when you're talking about nearly a million dollars?
You're annoying. You LIVING and RENTING in sf drives up prices. If you don't want to contribute to rising prices, you should quietly back your way out of San Francisco and move somewhere less desirable where you won't compete with others for space.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 16, 2013 @ 11:59 pm

because there is no limit to the number of homeless folks who might come here if the services were generous enough.

It's a bottomless pit.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 11:20 am

Your comment just isn't true. Also if Nevada and other places had better social safety nets they wouldn't be illegally busing mentally ill homes people to San francisco

Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

I'm dealing with what is, not what might be if we lived in another nation.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 2:46 pm

So we should all just give up on finding real solutions? Busing people into segregated areas is the solution? Sounds like you would have been OK with keeping Jim Crow and wouldn't have lifted a finger during the civil rights movement.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 3:59 pm

What SF needs to do is ensure that we are not giving them more help than other places, as that simply attracts more and more of them.

It's like a zombie movie - they just keep coming.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 4:13 pm

And there are real solutions but they need to be addressed nationwide not just in San Francisco.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 2:20 pm
Posted by Guest on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 2:43 pm

That is pathetic and self serving

Posted by Guest on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 3:44 pm

In fact I didn't say what I wanted at all. What i said is that most voters don't regard the homeless as a very high priority and so they don't get much funding, at least not outside SF.

It is better handled by churches, charities and volunteers.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 4:03 pm

Of course your opinion matters. Every voters opinion matters (of course the GOP wants to stop that from being the case with all these voter ID laws).

Posted by Guest on Dec. 15, 2013 @ 1:20 pm

And there are real solutions but they need to be addressed nationwide not just in San Francisco.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 2:20 pm
Posted by Greg on Dec. 14, 2013 @ 6:51 pm

Whats the solution to fact that we are all going to die? THRE IS NONE !!! Some things will NEVER be solved.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 19, 2013 @ 8:23 am

Ok, then how about this nation? Do you think we had similar problems with roving mentally ill individuals in 1950's, 1960's or even the 1970's? No, we didn't have this type of problem because states had actual mental health infrastructure that were supported by grants in aid from the Department of Health and Human Services. Its a big piece of public policy history called "de-institutionalization." Public policy scholars and sociologists write papers about it because it was used as an excuse to dismantle all public mental health initiatives. We weren't handling it as well as a place like Norway, but we were probably doing about as a good job with it as Canada. Now we just let them bounce between prison and the streets.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 5:08 pm

throw into the bottomless pit of institutionalizing thousands of these people.

Better to handle care through churches, charities and voluntary groups

Posted by Guest on Dec. 13, 2013 @ 5:20 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Related articles

  • Protect light industrial businesses from Big Tech sprawl

  • A fine dilemma

    Increased citations often hinder homeless youth from finding better life

  • San Francisco's untouchables

    Is San Francisco trying to help the homeless -- or drive them away?

  • Also from this author

  • Messed up: Did this man vandalize Alejandro Nieto's memorial?

  • San Francisco's shame and triumph: remembering the I-Hotel

  • Mayoral meltdown

    Mayor Ed Lee pushes back against ballot measures for affordable housing, transportation funding