2·
9 months agoThat is a fair point, I’ll keep that in mind.
- 0 Posts
- 22 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
Cake day: June 24th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
But these are vastly different situations. For the record, all three of these individuals used political violence to achieve political aims, that’s one of the reasons why history doesn’t remember them fondly. The constantly killed people they didn’t like under the justification that it’s for the greater good or self defense. Saddam Hussien did that when he genocided the Kurds in Iraq and the invasion Kuwait, Hitler did that with the Holocaust and the invasion of Europe, and Bin Laden did that with 9/11 and the other terrorist attacks he launched.
Keep in mind, we actually have a justice system in this country that actually works. If we want Trump to face justice it has to go through the justice where he faces trial and is found guilty based on evidence… which has already happened btw for one of his crimes. That’s how justice is handled in a civil democracy. We can’t have randos going on self righteous terrorism crusades killing political candidates they don’t like. If someone tried assassinate Biden, would you being say the same? Probably not, and rightfully so, but the terrorist who tried to kill would be making similar justifications to what you’re trying to make right now. The very idea is wrong.
There’s nothing wrong with what I said. You can’t give criminals motives nor can you give different crimes connections based on your personal opinions. The matter of fact here is that despite numerous investigations, we still don’t know why the Las Vegas shooter did what he did. If evidences surfaces that he was indeed motivated and inspired by the congressional shooting that happened shortly prior then we can establish such a connection, but until that happens we can’t.
I disagree, I think their names should be known and their crimes studied. We can’t erase what they did, nor should we. We have to discuss and research these fucked up individuals otherwise how are we going to come up with a solution for the root cause of the issue?
No, I’m just pointing out that your comparison is flawed. We didn’t know about the Holocaust until the war was almost over. The Soviets were the first to discover and liberate the camps back in 1944 (too bad they ended up having their own brutal camps) and the Americans liberated the first camp they discovered (Ohrdruf) in April 1945… the war in Europe was over in a month. That’s when the then general Eisenhower ordered the American soldiers to find the other camps, free the captives, and take pictures of everything they came across so Nazi crimes can be thoroughly documented and the American public can be made aware of them.
My point is that we didn’t intervene in the war because of what the Nazis were doing like you seem to imply, we intervened because we got attacked and declared war on.
We didn’t join WWII because the Nazis were bad, we joined because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and then Hitler declared war on the US.
We literally have no idea what Stephen Paddock’s motivation was. The Las Vegas shooting was not a reaction to the congressional shooting
I doubt it. Something like this already happened before in 2017. A deranged Bernie supporter went to a congressional baseball game and tried to shoot as many Republicans as he could. He ended up killing 6 people. However, despite that, there were no reactionary shootings. It was an isolated incident. I think this will be the same, or at least I hope.
That’s not a justification for more violence, two wrongs don’t make a right. He was wrong for doing what he did and this is wrong as well. This is because political violence in it’s entirety is wrong. Jesus, do people not have principles anymore? Seeing all the supposedly moral people turn into Q anon level conspiracy theorists who condone violence is depressing.
Usually rates that involve small raw numbers get swayed pretty significantly by relatively small changes. For example, Malta had a 3 murders last year, if that number doubled to 6, the homicide rate would increase by 100%. That’s a very significant increase, but does it imply that Malta has turned into a dangerous country? Not really, no. The increase would make it’s rate go from 0.561 per 100k to 1.122 per 100k, that’s around the same as New Zealand which is another very safe country. It should still be noted and discussed because there’s value in that, but my point is that these trends and swings in statistics can be pretty misleading if not put into proper context.
If anybody read the study, which I highly doubt, you’ll see that this story is highly exaggerated. The actually study showed the sterilization in women went from 2.83 per 100k people per month before Dobbs to 5.31 per 100k people per month after Dobbs. For men, the increase went from 1.03 per 100k people per month to 1.18 per 100k people per month.
Here’s the study for anybody who wants to see it:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2817438
There is a visible increase, but the actual rate is a lot smaller than what this article is attempting to suggest.
I mean every city is different. In the case of San Francisco, it could be that city is shrinking and that is driving down prices. However, in the case of the Texan cities, which are all growing, the decrease in rents is indeed due to flooding the market with new housing units:
Though the price housing has gone up considerably which is slowing down construction, which might bring up the rents again. However, this still shows that building new housing units in mass does bring down prices.
There’s nothing wrong with the concept of renting. It only becomes a problem when companies are manipulating the market or price gouging. If companies are renting out units are peak market rate, then the issue there’s way more demand than supply. The solution is fairly easy, build more units to flood the market and bring down the prices. It’s a tried and true method. Want to see in action? Look at how Texas managed to get all of its major cities to have a big decrease in their average rents compared to last year:
Austin managed to slash rent prices by 9.3%, San Antonio by 8.2%, Dallas by 3.7%, Houston by 3.2%. It’s not just Texas, Nashville managed to slash prices by 8.3%, Atlanta by 5.2%, Baltimore by 5.5%, and the list goes on and on. What’s the thing common with all these cities? They build more units. They flood the market with so many units that landlords have no choice but to bring rent prices down.
It’s not just rents, housing prices are also down in places that build more:
https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/home-prices-falling-cities-where-prices-dropped-most-past-year/
Home prices went down by 11.2% in Miami, Denver by 6.3%, Seattle by 5.5%, Kansas city by 4.9%, and the list goes on and on.
Want cheaper rents and houses? BUILD MORE HOUSES. Can’t do that? Update the outdated zoning laws to allow for multifamily buildings, mixed zoning properties, and higher density. This is the path forward.
How did you reach that conclusion? There’s a big difference between uncle Bob have a 3 unit building where he lives out in one and rents out the others and Blackrock buying 1,000 units in a town to artificially constraint inventory and inflate prices. There’s also a big difference between a company buildings a condo tower with 200 new units to rent/sell and a company buying already existing single family homes to manipulate the market. Clearly The latter examples in both of these comparisons are unethical and deserve to be outlawed, while the former example are fine.
That’s stupid. If a company is buying up already existing units to manipulate prices then there’s clearly an issue with that, but if a company is buildings new units to sell or rent, then where’s the problem? They’re literally introducing new units to the market. God, people on Lemmy are so brain dead.
The issue with this figure is that it comes from the Census Bureau, and their definition is broad and simple that it doesn’t into account for example. Here’s the definition they use:
Vacant Housing Units. A housing unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time of the interview, unless its occupants are only temporarily absent. In addition, a vacant unit may be one which is entirely occupied by persons who have a usual residence elsewhere. New units not yet occupied are classified as vacant housing units if construction has reached a point where all exterior windows and doors are installed and final usable floors are in place. Vacant units are excluded if they are exposed to the elements, that is, if the roof, walls, windows, or doors no longer protect the interior from the elements, or if there is positive evidence (such as a sign on the house or block) that the unit is to be demolished or is condemned. Also excluded are quarters being used entirely for nonresidential purposes, such as a store or an office, or quarters used for the storage of business supplies or inventory, machinery, or agricultural products. Vacant sleeping rooms in lodging houses, transient accommodations, barracks, and other quarters not defined as housing units are not included in the statistics in this report. (See section on “Housing Unit.”)
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf
As you can see this definition doesn’t really take into account a lot of genuine factors. For example, a lot of units are in really poor condition and require renovations in order to be livable again, but they’re counted as vacant because they still have their exteriors in place. Same goes units. They’re also counting units that are not entirely completed, units that are occupied but just temporarily like vacation homes, and mobile homes. We do have a lot of vacant units in this country, but it’s not as much as this figure would lead you to believe. In reality, we need new units, we need a lot of them, and we need them ASAP.
Or you know, just build more houses?
That’s idiotic. There’s nothing wrong with owning rentals or being a landlord. It only becomes an issue when massive corporations with endless amount of money buy so much inventory that they start affecting the market
I’m not here to defend him. He’s one of the worst of the presidents in our history. His list of horrendous acts goes far beyond his pandemic response and the insurrection, and it goes was past his presidency too. He’s truly awful. But with that being said, things like assassinations and terrorism should not become normalized as a legitimate way of achieving political means.