At some point notifications changed from solely “Look, this person interacted with your thing” to include things like “Look, someone on your friends list added a person you dont know” and i just know this boosted metrics enough to get some jackass a bonus.
For all of middle school, I would to wake up at 4:30 to catch the bus that arrived anytime between 5:30 and 6:25 to get to school at 7:15. And i wonder why my sleep is so fucked today, and why I was always too tired to focus on anything back then.
I really only commented because the op in the thread seemed to be completely missing the argument of the meme, I’m not sure why that means i also have to solve Capitalism. But off the top of my head…
We could start by re-appropriating land, buildings, and housing thats is being sat on without anyone living on it, offer it to people who dont own a home at a fixed rate of some % of their current income, convert existing unused buildings to assist in the construction of social housing. We have the land, resources, and means to provide everyone with housing, it’s just an issue of distribution. Ideally, you would be provided with a home that fits your needs once a social housing system has been fully established.
I dont care whether or not they like evicting people, neither do the people being evicted. The effect is the same, and people end up homeless.
The problem is capitalism, landlords shouldnt exist. Hence why i keep saying “Its a problem with the system” - the system is capitalism, which allows people to acquire more land than they need for their gain, while those who cant afford a home are exploited. I dont care how hard it it is for the landlord. I’ve listened to my mom talk about tenants she’s evicted, and no matter how shitty they are, they need a place to live. Thats the point of the post, not that landlords need to provide free housing. Its that they shouldnt exist.
No, you are misunderstanding. The point isnt that they are evil for not providing free housing, but that them pushing people onto the streets in order to protect their income is indicative a fundamental failure of our economic system. No one should be homeless.
The fact that protecting your income means potentially pushing people out of their home and onto the street is not good, that’s a problem with the system.
A lot of what you’re saying is true, but I dont see how any of this refutes what the OP says, and what i said previously.
I dont agree with that bit about a landlord being more vulnerable. if you’re being evicted, theres a good chance you wont be able to afford rent anywhere else. The landlord would ideally be able to sell extra properties to protect themselves and keep their home, renters dont usually own property. Where do you think people go when they can’t afford a place to live?
This is a systemic problem that wont go away unless we make housing more equitable. I mean, why should a landlord with a mortgage be able to take out multiple mortgages if a few bad tenants would actually make them homeless? No one should be homeless, banks dont need a house to live in. And as i said previously… “The fact that protecting your income means potentially pushing people out of their home and onto the street is not good,”
I don’t have excess money at the end of the month, but i still give it whenever I can. How is that relevant to landlords evicting people to save money? There shouldn’t be homeless people in the first place, let alone homeless families. But when a tenant misses rent, the landlord wont bat an eye and kicking the tenants onto the streets - that is a bad thing that shouldn’t have to happen. This has nothing to do with the landlords personal choices, or how “good” of a landlord they are, our system puts them in a position where making someone homeless is the rational decision.
Now, can you tell me what was so dumb about the original argument? Do you want to explain to me how this isn’t a systemic problem?
Neither of those things are even like, the top 3 things that are stopping you from having clean air.
How is it a dumb argument? The fact that protecting your income means potentially pushing people out of their home and onto the street is not good, that’s a problem with the system.
That poster at the top is Muncher Of Mushroomland by Chris Dyer/Positivecreations if anyone is interested. Love that dude’s work.
All Snakes are Bastards
I’ve been enjoying Los removedos
I’m trying to be more conscious of it because i noticed my friends who are trans make a point to avoid “You guys”. I’m resistant to y’all though, so instead of biting the bullet and adopting the local dialect, I’ll say “you all” or “You two”. Don’t do what i do, y’all is kinda useful.
They are. The amount of people who confidently say they’d shoot before attempting to communicate has me terrified; like they want a reason to escalate the situation.
Yeah, that would be a problem, but It was also hyperbole. It doesn’t take much soda to damage your teeth though.
Me when it’s time to see the dentist. Straws do protect your teeth from a lot of the damage the soda would do. Even the citric acid in diet sodas and other drinks can wear down your enamel. I think you can want to enjoy soda while still trying to keep your teeth attached to your head.
We should grant mercy as often as we can, but it can never come at the expense of the innocent.
You’re presenting a pretty idealized version of our justice system, i think. A big part of why I support leniency is because of how often our justice system gets it wrong. It’s crazy to think that bad luck and low social standing can cost you most of your life. Any punishment meant for violent criminals will inevitably target a substantial number of innocents or nonviolent offenders. It’s wishful thinking to believe our justice system is usually “just”. We should strive to help the victims feel vindicates as much as possible, but it will inevitably, usually come at the expense of the innocent.
there is a nuanced difference between transphobia and not wanting to discuss topics that cause arguments in a school
It’s still transphobia, the only reason it’s viewed as a political topic is because of transphobia. It’s pretty cowardly to say we should avoid talking about gender/trans issues just because it makes people uncomfortable, and might cause arguments. Trans people exist, but you’re arguement kinda says to me “They aren’t worth the trouble, id rather sideline them to avoid disagreements.”.
Abortion is a rough comparison, it’s a heavy topic and I think it would probably be inappropriate for more reasons than just being a “Political” topic.
Yeah he was arrested for downloading a massive amount of documents/articles off JSTOR with a computer hidden in an on-campus closet. He ended up committing suicide before going to trial for it
And honestly a pretty hillarious phrase to tattoo when some white foreigner rolls up asking for a “Lover of Asian Beauty” tattoo.