undergroundoverground

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

undergroundoverground ,

Small, immediate rewards for small achievable goals. We respond to them better than people without ADHD

undergroundoverground , (edited )

I get the feeling, I really do. However, I can't think of many things that would radicalise someone more than losing all their money or being buried under a pile of debt. Being these sorts of types, they'll only go one way. On reflection, I'm sure you recognise the very specific and historically recognisable tinder box.

I mean, it still might not be immoral. They can all get fucked. Just, maybe not in that specific way is all im saying.

undergroundoverground , (edited )

It was good. Then, they fucked it.

undergroundoverground ,

Unfortunately, American politics is so toxic, its infected nearly every country its come into contact with.

Understanably, american money and election interference is the reason European politics is becoming more americanised. For example, it was regan who radicalised thatcher. It was American and Russian dark money that funded vote leave (brexit). It was the CIA who funded far right groups all over Europe. Its American, far right Christian groups who try to lobby to take away reproductive freedom for women etc. etc.

America is empire now and no ones laughing anymore.

undergroundoverground ,

Have you tried having the worlds only super power ready to liberate the everlasting shit out of anyone who upsets you?

undergroundoverground ,

Definitely true, its just the arms companies milking your country dry want more money. So, they'll convince you all that you're no longer a super power.

undergroundoverground ,

Its not genocide because its not from the Atroci region of sub saharan Africa or the Geno region of Central and Eastern Europe.

It's actually sparkling murder induced relocation of an indigenous people, based solely on their ethnic identity, specifically to bring about the destruction of said ethnic group.

I hope that clears everything up.

undergroundoverground ,

Its also said "with liberty and justice for all" during a time where people kept literal slaves, without a hint of irony.

The wording far too inconsistent and vague to be taken as literally as you're attempting to take them.

undergroundoverground ,

So true and even the demand of the unjust man is an argument to moderation fallacy. Theres no reason to ever presume the middle to be the correct place, simply due to its middle-ness.

For example, if I said the sky was predominantly yellow and you corrected me saying "no, the sky is predominantly blue" would it be reasonable to conclude that the sky is predominantly green?

undergroundoverground ,

People extorting money due to the finite nature of land, for the sole reason of having been born with better access to capital.

It's just making money, due to having money. They didn't invent anything, they didnt discover and invest in an emerging company. They didn't do anything innovative or clever. Anyone born to wealth could have done it. Which is why those are, by far and away, the vast majority of landlords.

Even a Conservative, union busting aristocrat like Churchill knew how bad landlordism was and landlords have been hated throughout all of human history. It's only the current neoliberal plague who've attempted to moralise it with rich people worship and bootstrap paradoxes.

undergroundoverground ,
  1. they can but they're so few and far between that they don't need mentioning. Loads will claim to have been born poor too but experience has left me unable to trust those claims. I even reference the fact that its not literally all off them, so I'm not sure why you needed to mention it again.

  2. All landlords, I was very clear about that but people making money through simply being a middle person sucks too. Nothing close to landlords though which is why I didn't mention them and they aren't covered by what I said.

  3. Ah yes, the old "bitter or a hypocrite" trope. It has to be one or the other, as the amoral people who throw it around can't comprehend a moral objection to exploitation, usually due to poor empathy and even poorer social skills. The only people who want something for doing no work is landlords and shareholders. Its just astral level projection from people born to wealth, who even try to moralise their explanation by claiming everyone else, not born to their privilege and opportunity, must be lazy.

It turns out, they dont care about anyone being bitter or hypothetical, let alone the morality of just about anything. They just really don't want people talking about inequality or exploitation.

undergroundoverground ,

Its not me who's wrong, as owning something isn't work.

Now, they might do some repairs or maintenance but thats actual work and not what they're paid for.

What they're paid for is for doing no work and they, like shareholders, are the only people who expect to be paid for doing no work.

Our society is so messed up that they even have people declaring ownership is work, on their behalf.

undergroundoverground ,

Again, you're wrong. "Landlord" sn't work.

landlord

a person or organization that owns a room, building, or piece of land that someone else pays rent to use

You can't just make up you're own definition of words. A landlord can outsource all of that to a management company and still be a landlord.

Maintenance is work and people should be paid for work. However, the landlord will get paid regardless of who does it. Thats because "landlord" isn't work which is why "landlording" isn't a verb.

undergroundoverground ,

No, you can't just make up words either. It's deliberately misused slang, at best. Even then, I didn't say it was or wasn't a word. Please try and keep the sophistry to a minimum. I said it wasn't a verb as "landlord" isn't a job and "landlording" isn't a doing word.

That's recruitment, not being a landlord. Recruitment is work.

Regardless of what names they may or may not have, owning something, in of itself, isn't a job.

You're making this seem a lot harder than it actually is.

undergroundoverground ,

No, owning something, in of itself, isn't a job. For example, you own the device on which you're typing you're utter nonsense. Is you owning your device a job?

Have you ever seen a job vacancy for "landlord"?

No, of course not. Thats why "landlord" isn't a job.

undergroundoverground ,

Owning something isn't a job, even if you stamp your feet and strop about it really hard. Thats why no definition of the word defines it as a job. Stop making up meanings for words, its pathetic.

Landlord

a person or organization that owns a building or an area of land and is paid by other people for the use of it:

NOT A JOB.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines