For sharing a fact? You're a "special" one, aren't you?
- Posts
- 5
- Comments
- 322
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 5
- Comments
- 322
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
You're 100% correct, the people downvoting are dumb
My favorite part about the meltdown in this thread is that the people who are seething over Hillary today are the same exact people who defended her tooth and nail back in 2016 despite her always being the exact same.
Garlic, onions, and butter are my holy trinity
Languages are like tools, if people don't see utility in them, they won't use them. The only people who would go out of their way to learn and use a specific tool are experts and enthusiasts, and there aren't enough of those around to keep a language alive. If much bigger languages like Yiddish, Romani, Bavarian, Assyrian, etc are classified as critically endangered and struggling to survive then these smaller languages simply have no future. I think efforts like this are good for preserving the language, and there's definitely value in that, but I ultimately think that this is a doomed language.
Most of these houses are not in downtowns of big cities but in rural towns that are far away from everything. Not to mention, just because a unit is vacant that doesn't mean it's not being used.
No, you're just wrong. You can't twist reality to fit some niche ideological fantasy that you find sexy.
The reality is that statistics show that if we took all the vacant houses including all those that are inhabitable, under renovations, all the second, third, whatever homes, and we took all the investment properties as well and made them all immediately available, there would still NOT be enough houses to meet the current demand.
The reality is that we have very nonsensical and outdated zoning as well as restrictive construction process that strangle output. We need to reform our zoning laws and expedite construction to pump the market with many new housing units as possible to not just meet, but also exceed demand. That's the only way to bring house prices down in a genuine way while also giving people homes that they actually want to live in places that they want to live in.
How many of these are actually habitable? I would assume a large portion are either too dilapidated or under renovations.
I very much doubt that nearly a third of the housing stock is vacant for no reason, especially when it's a seller's market. The statistics for people who own more than home or buildings with more than unit are not enough to explain the difference. I'm skeptical of these random no name authors on websites like medium.
I know people here want a sexy quick solution, but the reality is that this country's housing stock is too small, too old, and is not keeping up with demand at all. The one and only solution is to reform zoning laws, expedite housing construction, and pump the market with so many new units that it not only meets demands, but exceeds to the point where prices fall and we have a buyer's market.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
The actually reality is this:
Literally nothing is known about this woman outside of a single narrative written by a supposed 14th century Moroccan historian, Ibn Abi Zar', who we know nothing about either outside of him being a historian. Actually, most academics doubt that he was any sort of scholar to begin with because the source of this information is not reliable.
There's literally ZERO evidence to support that this historian was one or that this woman was even real. In fact there's evidence that supports the notion that this story is fake because the inscriptions inside the mosque use a different script than what is claimed in the story. Most academics are skeptical of her existence and her story is treated as a cultural legend rather than historical fact.
Also within the folktale story, which by the way was written over 600 years after her supposed death, claims that she, along with her sister, inherited the wealth from their wealthy merchant father, and they both decided to use that fortune to build two parallel mosques in the same city.
The thing is that mosques in the early islamic periods were more like community centers than purely religious institutions. So it wasn't uncommon for mosques to have a learning center as a part of the complex. Keep in mind, these learning centers were islamic schools that taught islam. They weren't centers for researching and preserving knowledge like modern universities.
Over time, these mosques were repurposed to the needs of their time. Some were turned into purely religious institutions, some were demolished, some were turned into political seats of power, some remained community centers, and some evolved into purely islamic madrasas. Al Qarawiyyin was one of the latter. So this post is nothing more than blatant misinformation.
Tl;dr: This story is fake, this person isn't real, the historical source is unreliable, and the institution is not an actual university but a mosque that later became an islamic madrasa.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
No, this story is simply not true.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm
There's quite a few assumptions here that I disagree with:
- Property relations are inherently tied to exploitation - That's just not true. Voluntary exchange is not exploitative. For example, let's suppose a musician makes their livelihood by owning a music school where they sell music lessons, and they need more instructors to meet demand so they go out and hire one. The person being hired is someone who sells their skills for a living, and they applied for this position of their own volition and signed a contract for a wage they find satisfactory... how is that exploitative? This is a win-win situation.
- Ownership of property is the same as extraction of surplus value - Again, this is just not true. For example, someone living off their own farm without tenants or employees wouldn’t fit this critique.
- Restricting access to property is inherently bad - First of all, I don't know what "reproduce themselves each day" is supposed to even mean, that's just nonsense. Regardless, restricting access to property is literally how societies manage resources. Exclusion is often necessary to prevent overuse and conflict, and when based on fair agreements, it supports both individual rights and social stability. There's a reason why human civilization evolved throughout history to favor private ownership.
- Labor is the only source of value in a society - This is false. Things like land (natural resources), technology, knowledge, entrepreneurship, innovation, and capital (tools, infrastructure, machines) also produce value in an economy. Of course labor is important and valuable, but it is not the sole source of value. Holding this assumption as true is just economic illiteracy because you can't run an economy with just labor alone.
- Inequality is the same as exploitation - Inequality is a difference in outcomes or opportunity while exploitation is unfair advantage. Not all inequality is exploitative, some of it is caused by things like effort, talent, merit, or choice. Exploitation, on the other hand, involves coercion or injustice, which makes it morally distinct. Exploitation can cause inequality, but not all inequality is exploitative. In this sense profit is not inherently exploitation even if it can be if obtained in certain ways.
When you remove these assumptions from the equation, there isn't really a coherent argument left. Your argument only makes sense if you accept the Marxist framework as true without a second thought, which I don't. I reject both Marxist analysis and proposals. I'm not entirely dismissive of Marxist critiques, but they have to be framed in a way where they're able to stand on their own merits for me to consider accepting them. Otherwise, there's no point because Marxism and its assumptions are simply outdated. It's an 18th century framework and ideology that was made by men of that time for societies of that time. The world has changed since then and modern economies don't work the same way anymore.
This isn't a video game. Long lasting ideologies are flexible, practical, unifying, and care deeply about the means of achieving their goals. Short lasting ideologies are rigid, idealist to a fault, seek to divide and exclude, and care more about the ends than the means.
That makes sense
The mortgage usually includes the principle, property tax, and the interest (also mortgage insurance too if you have that). Why do you have them all listed separately?
Trying to actively seek and categorize enemies is inherently problematic. A good ideology doesn't seek to eliminate enemies, but to bring about positive results.
That's stupid, under that definition small business owners are the enemy. Not to mention that there's no genuine argument as to why owning property or living off it is inherently bad in any way.
This is why I keep saying that Marxism has and well truly lived past it's usefulness. Now it's just an outdated ideology that people try to slap on to a world it wasn't made for.
How is it besides the point? It is the point. These people are genuinely ignorant and uneducated, and their sources for information are very narrow and distorted. Their perceptive can only change when they're directly affected because that experience is what gives them the change necessary to learn and grow. You're implying that they're all malicious and evil, but I disagree with that view. I don't they all lack empathy, I think they're good people who have been brainwashed by a handful of genuinely vile people who seek to manipulate them for their own personal gain by keeping them blind, poor, miserable, scared, and angry. Do I think this of all MAGA? No, but I do think it applies to a significant chunk.
What the hell are you even talking about? You can't even follow your own statements. It's like you're mentally lost. This is what you originally said:
If the revolution ever comes, they should not be forgiven.
This clearly an implicit statement of vengeance. You're definitely some sort of Marxist, and you think that when the revolution comes, people like her should be killed or at the very least be punished for the crime of participating in their society.
You could've been honest and owned up to it, but you chose to deny it and follow it up with this weird backpedaling take:
We must build a better world without their input or consent. we must have a world where everyone is free and have access to a dignified life. But that does not mean to forgive them let alone forget what they did. They should have access to the same lives everyone else have access to, but they will do so without friends, without family, with everyone spiting them
This is still clearly punitive in nature because your primary goal isn't to make things better, but rather to make sure that they pay a price as a punishment. Which again is an act of vengeance.
I could've almost led this slide as some misguided view about not forgetting history or something along those lines, but you chose to add this at the end:
Do you think we should have pardoned everyone in the Nuremberg trials?
Really? This is the event you wanted to cite here? Not only does this demonstrate your astounding ignorance of these trails, what happened in them, and what the takeaways are, but it also shows that you're seeking a form of collective punishment using guilt by association as the justification... which is precisely the opposite of what these trials hoped to achieve.
Now, once again, you're denying previous statement and giving yet another weird backpedaling take:
where did I say to punish her? I’m only saying shes not to be trusted, and we shouldn’t work with her.
“not inviting me unconditionally after I intentionally destroyed the country is a cruel punishment”
Which takes us back to square one you can't seem to comprehend the fact acceptance and vengeance aren't opposites of each other. An actual pragmatic take would be that is simply idiotic to try to collectively punish a huge demographic like this, especially on the grounds of guilt by association, for the crime of them participating in their society within the context of their system. It is better from a strategic point of view to firmly acknowledge their mistakes while being open to cooperating with those who reach the same conclusion. Those who have disavowed their previous beliefs provide a strategic opportunity to create a coalition that gets to advance an agenda ends MAGA fascism and implements better policies faster.
Even if we don't see eye to eye with these people on everything, it's better to recognize that disagreements are a fact of politics and that it's better to utilize this common ground to achieve common goals wherever possible, as opposed to not achieving them at all due to stubbornness. This is an infinitely better option than to seek eternal retribution or hold eternal grudges. Holding this view doesn't mean that you endorse MAGA ideology or that you forget everything that happened, it just means that you're practical in your aims. This view is the ONLY view of people who believe in democracy as a system of governance. Rejection of it for something more rigid, absolute, and violent just means that you're an authoritarian.
No, we can say they were wrong because doing something like this is evil and tyrannical