[–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Yeah, you gotta reframe it. "Don't you miss when people used more traditional ways to get around? Give me a horse or a bicycle any day".

They will agree to fucking anything if you preface it as "traditional"

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    This was a very hyperbolic response, so let’s clarify a few things:

    1. Not all investments are equal, and saying some thing should be ineligible to invest in for profit-seeking is not at all the same as saying Death to Capitalism, as you seem to imply. My imaginary friend is starting a landscaping business & is asking for an initial investment in exchange for a return of profits. That is not the same as investing in a fossil fuel company that’s directly contributing to the destruction of the planet. That is not the same as investing in a sanctioned Russian company responsible for war crimes. That is not the same as seeking to maximize profit off of a resource people need to survive.

    2. As I said, I’m not advocating for all investments to be abolished. But digging into retirees a little more- you’re right, many retirees can’t work anymore. Also, many retirees don’t have enough resources to simply passively profit off of owning capital. Investing doesn’t help those people, does it? In fact the opposite- capital-owners seeking to maximize profit drive up the price of essential goods that retirees need to live. Like rent! Overall our government should be helping all retirees live to a base standard level of care.

    3. Not all methods of profiting from an investment are moral or should be allowed. Price gouging is a thing. A hurricane is approaching the coast, and evacuees need to leave, or they will die. Gas stations jack up the price of fuel to maximize profit regardless of the harm it will do to the people. That should not be allowed. Right now, there is a housing crisis. Investors should not be allowed to maximize profit at the cost of harming entire generations of Americans.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    From NSVRC:

    “Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration.

    An estimated 13% of women and 6% of men have experienced sexual coercion in their lifetime (i.e., unwanted sexual penetration after being pressured in a nonphysical way); and 27.2% of women and 11.7% of men have experienced unwanted sexual contact.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    I'm not saying they should run it as a charity, I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to own it passively. You say "build a credit score, income, and down payment" as if those things aren't handed to the upper class on a silver platter. If a trust fund baby decides to buy a house for "passive income" they will have done absolutely ZERO work for that money.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Ok doomer. That's entirely false. I provided sources showing, as I said, that Dems support RCV and GOP does not. Tell me: which party instituted RCV in North Carolina? And which party repealed it under the guise of "voter security"?

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: next ›