184
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
184 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15917 readers
1 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
yes haha funny but the conditions are clearly different, this guy owns one property compared to a farmstead with acres and slaves and the ability to kill or take your daughter's with impunity. If the state dispossessed the guy of his home to give him an actual social safety plan it would be completely fine.
So, in the meantime, it’s cool that the burden of paying for this man’s retirement plan is placed onto the proletarians who pay the rent?
If a homeless person were suddenly gifted the deed to a house, would it be okay if they started renting it out for passive income? After all, there’s no social safety net, and this is the one opportunity they’ve been granted to gain stability. What are they supposed to do? Not take advantage of that? Call me a utopian, but yeah, they shouldn’t.
Renting out a property simply shifts the burden that you take onto the less fortunate. It’s a fundamentally capitalist act. I’m not sorry for being a dick to this old man. If he planned to retire using the funds siphoned from people simply seeking shelter, he should have understood the inherent risks that come with such a plan and the burden he has thus shifted over to his tenants.
Finding yourself oppressed in a capitalist system is not some magical moral hand-wave that allows you to conscientiously take up the position of the oppressor. Is he a victim of circumstance? Maybe. Sucks for him. Shouldn’t have staked his retirement on landlordism
for me, it depends if the homeless person is capable of other work
I'll just leave it at personally it's not something I would be able to do unless the old man was a truly vile human.