LE, I could see young but I definitely don’t see troll at all.
I’ve gathered that ZG is not in a great place, they made several posts doomering, but I’ve yet to see them say anything “fishy” or “trolling.” Maybe I missed something?
Don’t we always say there is no ethical consumption under capitalism?
I don’t know how things work in different places. But here most own a flat (that they actually worked for themselves) and rent it and stay at rent themselves. These people are workers struggling to live.
I don’t think they should get the same treatment as a capitalist owning 965 houses from inheritance and the exploitation of workers.
You’re weaseling in rhetoric that big landlords use to justify their bullshit. If you’re not zero tolerance about it then everyone from slumlords to “urban professionals” with a spare room rebrand themselves as “housing providers” and frame themselves as the unfortunate victims of ebil tenants. Making exceptions for some people in an inherently abusive system still enables that culture to exist.
If it’s not a rent-to-partially-own housing coop contract then even low-earning landlords are just shoveling their tenants’ money into a pit for their own gain. That’s money that said tenants could have put toward their own homeownership but now can’t because the market pushed them into this one-sided relationship.
I agree with your reasoning but I don’t see the need to call ZG a weasel. Even if to you they’re bourgeois talking points I don’t think they cited that reasoning intentionally trying to defend bourgeois, we’ve all had bad takes that needed to be ironed out before.
It’s not in reference to their character, it’s in reference to the specific phrasing used. This interpretation of “there is no ethical consumption” obfuscates the root causes of class antagonism and people propogating it should be dunked on until it stops being said.
Houses are meant for living. If you need to live in a house, you should own one. If you own more houses than you need to live, you’re probably taking those away from someone who needs and therefore should be owning them. And, if you’re letting someone else (therefore they need it) live in the house you own (therefore you don’t), then you’re definitely doing that.
Money is meant to be earned by working, it’s a token to represent your effort and buy others’. People who earn their money that way are called the working class. People who earn money by other means devised or permitted by the system are not called working class.
This process makes the system less efficient and fair, because it funnels goods and services away from those that produce or need them. People who are concerned about this typically consider renting out homes immoral in any form and context.
The following is supposed to provide an example for the debates below.
I do not consider this to be “proof” of anything since it is simply a single-case example, but my family owns and lives in a house that has three flats. My parents own half of the house and live in one flat while my grandparents own the other half and live in the second flat. Now since there was that third flat in the house we rented it out and therefore technically are landlords, even though it’s barely worth the paperwork trouble since it’s a very small flat and rent prices are low. Still, both my parents work full-time and are certainly therefore workers.
Again, this is not meant to “prove” anything but it shows that technically landlords can be workers too. I do not want to defend landlords that own multiple houses, but in this particular example there is literally nothing better the flat could be used for, so I don’t consider it stealing living space from others when we never even really profited from it.
Reminder landlords can still be a part of worker class. Most are
No.
deleted by creator
That guy was fishy from the moment he joined.
deleted by creator
TCT, why were they “fishy”?
LE, I could see young but I definitely don’t see troll at all.
I’ve gathered that ZG is not in a great place, they made several posts doomering, but I’ve yet to see them say anything “fishy” or “trolling.” Maybe I missed something?
deleted by creator
The mindset is west = world.
Don’t we always say there is no ethical consumption under capitalism?
I don’t know how things work in different places. But here most own a flat (that they actually worked for themselves) and rent it and stay at rent themselves. These people are workers struggling to live.
I don’t think they should get the same treatment as a capitalist owning 965 houses from inheritance and the exploitation of workers.
You’re weaseling in rhetoric that big landlords use to justify their bullshit. If you’re not zero tolerance about it then everyone from slumlords to “urban professionals” with a spare room rebrand themselves as “housing providers” and frame themselves as the unfortunate victims of ebil tenants. Making exceptions for some people in an inherently abusive system still enables that culture to exist.
If it’s not a rent-to-partially-own housing coop contract then even low-earning landlords are just shoveling their tenants’ money into a pit for their own gain. That’s money that said tenants could have put toward their own homeownership but now can’t because the market pushed them into this one-sided relationship.
I agree with your reasoning but I don’t see the need to call ZG a weasel. Even if to you they’re bourgeois talking points I don’t think they cited that reasoning intentionally trying to defend bourgeois, we’ve all had bad takes that needed to be ironed out before.
It’s not in reference to their character, it’s in reference to the specific phrasing used. This interpretation of “there is no ethical consumption” obfuscates the root causes of class antagonism and people propogating it should be dunked on until it stops being said.
Capitalism itself is inherently exploitative. But whatever, meanigless debates.
The expropriation of rent is a bourgeois action. All landlords are bourgeois.
Houses are meant for living. If you need to live in a house, you should own one. If you own more houses than you need to live, you’re probably taking those away from someone who needs and therefore should be owning them. And, if you’re letting someone else (therefore they need it) live in the house you own (therefore you don’t), then you’re definitely doing that.
Money is meant to be earned by working, it’s a token to represent your effort and buy others’. People who earn their money that way are called the working class. People who earn money by other means devised or permitted by the system are not called working class.
This process makes the system less efficient and fair, because it funnels goods and services away from those that produce or need them. People who are concerned about this typically consider renting out homes immoral in any form and context.
I don’t agree with this take but if this comment is the reason ZeroGravity is banned I’m a little upset.
deleted by creator
The following is supposed to provide an example for the debates below. I do not consider this to be “proof” of anything since it is simply a single-case example, but my family owns and lives in a house that has three flats. My parents own half of the house and live in one flat while my grandparents own the other half and live in the second flat. Now since there was that third flat in the house we rented it out and therefore technically are landlords, even though it’s barely worth the paperwork trouble since it’s a very small flat and rent prices are low. Still, both my parents work full-time and are certainly therefore workers. Again, this is not meant to “prove” anything but it shows that technically landlords can be workers too. I do not want to defend landlords that own multiple houses, but in this particular example there is literally nothing better the flat could be used for, so I don’t consider it stealing living space from others when we never even really profited from it.