Comic Strips

12798 readers

5333 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
The comic must be a complete story.
If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
You may post comics from others or your own.
If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
Politeness.
Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

Web of links

[email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
[email protected]: memes (you don't say!)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

lawrence

1414

Facts (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by gedaliyah to c/comicstrips

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] overcast5348 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I'm a renter, and my parents have never owned a house, so I've dealt with landlords all my life. I don't agree with "landlord bad". Are there shitty landlords? Yes. But it's a leap to go from that to "all landlords are bad".

Can you imagine the backlash from the same left-leaning group that goes "landlord bad" if you applied the same logic to a racial or religious group?

Landlords serve an important purpose in the marketplace and any uncontrolled rampant exploitation is a failure of the government and not the entire group of people who sell the service.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So while I'm undecided on landlords, I think your logic is flawed. Are you saying that criticising the concept of owning land and charging people for housing is the same as being born into a socially constructed group or the same as choosing or being born into a organization structured around shared beliefs? Because I'm not sure they're quite the same thing.

[–] overcast5348 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, I'm saying that it's unfair to criticize an entire group of people for the actions of some people who happen to belong to the same group while the rest are perfectly fine contributors to society.

On the other hand, if the sole purpose of the group is to spread hate/cause unrest/violence then I'd be okay with hating the entire group.

Hating landlord-ism as a concept makes sense to a certain extent, but I'm yet to see a realistic alternative provided by anyone. Hating landlords is something that I don't agree with. --> this seems to be a controversial stance.

Along the same lines, I hate religion but I don't hate all religious people. --> this isn't that controversial a stance. They're both essentially the same to me.

[–] Snowclone 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A realistic alternative? The occupant owns the dwelling. That removes the problem entirely. People can't afford to buy? Well if you can't own residential property you don't live in. Prices will correct.

Alternatively, the government historically has given most middle class Americans the majority of their generational wealth through land gift programs, then you gave first time homeowner loans, which could easily be retooled to give the property to those living there and have all payments go towards ownership,

There's so many options better than someone fucking you in the ass as hard as they can so you can bearly survive.

[–] overcast5348 1 points 5 months ago

I'm not from the US so correct me if I'm wrong - didn't the governments of US and Canada give away land in what was essentially "bumfuck nowhere"? Isn't land still cheap in comparable locations?

If only people who live on the property are allowed to own it then prices might go down a bit. Say 50%, a number that I'm pulling out of my ass. I genuinely don't believe that demand in cities will let prices go down by even that much. But even with a 50% crash, a shit ton of people would never get to live in a city (someone who just moved out of their parents' home, someone who is recovering from a loss due to a bad business, someone who just immigrated etc.)

So what would be the solution to those people? Live in a few hundred kms away from the city and commute every day?

As much as I'd like to own property in the city that I live in, I don't think banning landlords will lower prices enough for me to buy a house here. So, I'd rather rent and live in the city than go live in some village.

[–] Snowclone 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

No one's born a landlord. It's not comparable to race in any way. Comparing racism to being against unregulated and manufactured housing scarcity feels like a really bad faith argument.

[–] overcast5348 0 points 5 months ago

Okay, ignore race, consider only religion.

People are born into a religion and are free to leave it or embraced a different religion. It is completely in their choice.

Similarly, people can be born into a family that owns zero to two properties, are free to acquire more or sell what they have. It is completely in their choice.

Why is it okay to judge one group by the actions of "a few bad apples" and not the other?