- 0 Posts
- 29 Comments
Ok but this isn’t really the same thing. A home isn’t a tool you rent just to use when you need it. Everyone needs a shelter to live in.
You give two reasons it’s preferable to rent rather than own your home:
- You have to store it.
That’s just ridiculous.
- You have to maintain it.
You do realise that you’re still paying to maintain it, right? The landlord is just also taking extra. Even if the landlord were charging you only what was strictly necessary for maintenance (which they aren’t), they’d still have unnecessary leverage over you just for existing in a space.
Don’t try to make excuses for landlords. We all know they’re vermin. They’re not doing you any favours by forcing you to keep paying high prices to live.
(Edit: formatting)
Well obviously the most moral thing would be to live in it themselves or give it away to someone who actually wants to live in it. I accept that practically nobody is gonna be virtuous enough to just give away a free apartment to a homeless person, but selling it for a (at least somewhat) reasonable price is probably what I’d realistically do (assuming no close friend or family member wanted it).
Renting it out is still inherently exploiting the person living there.
Also consider that no “good person” simply owns a residential property that they don’t live in.
I know I’m not who you’re replying to and other people might disagree with parts of this, but can anyone seriously not agree that all landlords are scum?
testing whether the testee understands their nation, its values, and the democratic principles it is founded on
It seems like you only want people with certain “values” to be able to vote. What even are a nation’s “values” anyway? Most of the time I hear that it’s just vague nationalist propaganda about how our nation and our people are wonderful. I will admit that’s a bit of a specific nitpick though.
As for “the structure of government and the content of the constitution”, I honestly don’t think the details of how laws are passed or how many seats are in congress, etc, matter much when it comes to deciding which policies you support and which party you’ll vote for.
By their very nature, laws like this exclude people who are less educated and have less free time and/or motivation to study for your test. These are almost always going to be also the most disadvantaged and poorly treated people in society.
4·7 days agoBasically everyone has little knowledge about the vast majority of things. People who have strong beliefs generally think they have good evidence for them (even if what they think is clearly untrue and their evidence is nonsensical).
I’ve heard of “appeal to authority” and such, but at the end of the day I think that it’s generally sensible to just believe the mainstream expert consensus on something until you’re given good evidence otherwise, especially if you’re dealing with hard science.
Of course it’s ideal to know more about a topic than basic things you were told and took as fact and this should be paired with some level of media literacy and critical thinking, though.
Sounds like what chuds think the world is already like
That’s a quite reasonable response, but I will say that no actual revolution is likely gonna not involve a lot of violence. And yeah… protests are almost always gonna come at the very least with the threat of violence (for a reason). Plus, figures who do something violent that many see as ultimately justified can create awareness that could lead to more pressure on elites.
I just don’t think it’s productive to condemn violence in general. I don’t think violence not done by the state is in itself bad. Obviously a lone wolf going after random people they think deserve it isn’t gonna directly enact real change, but going on about how peaceful you are seems counterproductive.
Mass mobilisation and vigilante justice aren’t mutually exclusive, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.
Pic unrelated
That sounds nice but I don’t think that’s exactly the case in practice. There are often people who the state defends at the expense of others, who will never realistically receive any kind of justice from the state. I think things are also generally much better when these people are scared.
I’m not trying to advocate for violence against anyone specific but sometimes I think it’s best when people stand up for themselves (and the people) to show that they’re willing to enact some kind of justice in a corrupt system. Thinking of vigilantes in general as immoral and barbaric while thinking “democracy” alone can help you just plays into the hands of those who wish to exploit you imo.
Pic unrelated
Provide security for whom?
I heckin’ love the state’s monopoly on violence!
3·9 days agoNobody cares bro. My farts smell better than yours
2·9 days agoBruh when did I say “we need to be like the Chinese party-state because they have freedom of expression and information”?
I’m trying to say that this Article 19 group has no real principles beyond: “UK government protecting our ‘information integrity’=good. Chinese censorship and ‘misinformation’=bad.” Also it’s not even “Chinese media ownership”, it’s a US firm with a chairman who has ties to China.
But if you can’t follow this beyond “this guy clearly loves China and hates Britain, I need to explain why China is worse”, then go off I guess.
This article is so strange to me. Do these guys want “media plurality” and “freedom of expression and information” or to stop people with links to China from owning UK news outlets? On the one hand they’re talking about this ideal of freedom of press and on another it’s about how we need to restrict who can control the press. “Information integrity” sounds like justification for censorship to me.
It’s so full of vague, conflicting ideals.
The idea of laws about transparency of ownership and funding seems reasonable I suppose. It’s good media literacy to find out what you can about who owns and funds a news outlet. That’s why I looked into who’s behind this “Article 19” organisation.
https://www.article19.org/financials/
Ah… The UK and US governments, along with the infamous “National Endowment for Democracy”. Seems it’s bad when China tries to control the narrative, but not the UK or US.
As for whether I personally think this US firm that has some links to China should be allowed to buy the Telegraph, I don’t care much either way, as long as I can access the media I want to and look up who owns it. It does seem like they’re trying to set a precedent for blocking foreign outlets they don’t like though.
I don’t think many people are gonna have “hot takes” based on a vaguely titled article behind a paywall.
Also “scandals” to do with the Chinese military have little to do with someone saying that Taiwanese military badges don’t prove anything about the situation in China.
I know. I never said they were the same. I’m trying to say that this comes across like a zionist strawman.
Complaining about antisemitism right now is just cringe.
Jews have a right to exist. Israel doesn’t.
There are genuine concerns about people promoting “Israel” to benefit from the extermination of the Palestinian people, and that’s what this looks like a strawman of, to me.
And to be clear, I don’t think “the Jews” are behind this. It’s largely rich and powerful people from the US (and UK and other countries), who often consider themselves to be Christian.
I’m not trying to defend the crazy guy in the comic. I’m trying to say that we shouldn’t be pretending this guy is representative of anyone who matters.
Well sure… but this is a political comic that’s basically saying “these crazy people hate the Jews and blame them for everything”.
Obviously you can post whatever you want and there surely are crazy people like this, but to me this comes across as though it could be trying to discredit certain criticisms and seems in bad taste right now. It doesn’t really matter what you say you personally believe.
But if you find this funny then sure. I’m not trying to have your post removed or anything.
This is a bad post to make when Israel is currently committing a genocide and powerful people are clearly trying to distort the truth about it.
Of course “the Jews” aren’t behind the trees being fake or whatever, and antisemitism is bad… but this reeks of zionist pro-Israel strawman shit.
Bruh… not everything that happens is a distraction from another thing that happened