this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
1267 points (97.5% liked)

Greentext

5231 readers
2200 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
1267
Murica (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Anons argue in comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago

tl;dr: elaborated, sorry if misrepresented you.

the solution is not to make apartments instead of single family homes, the solution is to not allow massive housing developments with no businesses around them and to not make massive residential zones where none are allowed. the lack of businesses such as stores or regular sized offices in the vicinity of residential areas is the problem, not people having their own homes. what you said was to build apartments closer to where people work instead of houses. you may not have intended it this way (and to be honest, I was more hostile here than was deserved) but what that sounds like you are saying is that people should be living in apartments right by their offices instead of having their own houses. if the entirety of a company's workforce (or at least the entirety of any particular office) lived in an apartment building right by the office, the company would exploit that to restrict people's ability to not be working. I communicated this poorly but the fact is that many companies already get as close to doing this as they can manage even when they can't exploit your housing, and if they could this would immediately be a genuine threat. what I meant by the fediverse comment was also based on what i thought you meant, because it sounded like you were saying all of someone's work and housing should be as close to one big block as possible. this is why i made the comparison to centralized social media as it would all be one big block unilaterally controlled by just about anyone but the consumer. if this were to become the case there would be no better place to move to because every city would be like that. the privacy and property comment doesn't make that much sense to me either, so i'm going to take it as a sign that that's enough internet for tonight. If my interpretation of what you were saying was incorrect (and having slept a little between when i made my last reply and when i made this one, i'm pretty sure it was) then I'm sorry I misrepresented what you said. I still stand by what I said but it probably shouldn't have been directed at you.