Unrealistic: in the real version, no awnser would be declared as fact. Even if one is clearly wrong the awnser will always be:
“It is important that we listen to both sides”
Social media in a nutshell
YOURE WRONG AND HERE LET ME EXPLAIN WHY BUT INSTEAD OF EXPLAINING I USE A PERSONAL ATTACK
“If you can’t pound the facts, pound the table”.
— republicans.
Commenting against the Lemmy narrative be like:
What is the Lemmy narrative from your experience?
Israel bad, AI bad, police bad, Elon bad, Capitalism bad, Boeing bad, Microsoft bad, Apple bad, Facebook bad, rich people bad, landlords bad, C.E.O.s bad, ads bad, cars bad, SUVs/trucks very bad, piracy good, bikes good, uBlock Origin good, trains good, Linux good, bats good, Ukraine good, protests good, socialism good …
Wow, quite an extensive list. Haven’t expected that. Thanks for sharing!
Yeah, I guess there is some truth to it.
Do you have an example on why any of these povs are wrong?
I’m a renter, and my parents have never owned a house, so I’ve dealt with landlords all my life. I don’t agree with “landlord bad”. Are there shitty landlords? Yes. But it’s a leap to go from that to “all landlords are bad”.
Can you imagine the backlash from the same left-leaning group that goes “landlord bad” if you applied the same logic to a racial or religious group?
Landlords serve an important purpose in the marketplace and any uncontrolled rampant exploitation is a failure of the government and not the entire group of people who sell the service.
So while I’m undecided on landlords, I think your logic is flawed. Are you saying that criticising the concept of owning land and charging people for housing is the same as being born into a socially constructed group or the same as choosing or being born into a organization structured around shared beliefs? Because I’m not sure they’re quite the same thing.
No, I’m saying that it’s unfair to criticize an entire group of people for the actions of some people who happen to belong to the same group while the rest are perfectly fine contributors to society.
On the other hand, if the sole purpose of the group is to spread hate/cause unrest/violence then I’d be okay with hating the entire group.
Hating landlord-ism as a concept makes sense to a certain extent, but I’m yet to see a realistic alternative provided by anyone. Hating landlords is something that I don’t agree with. --> this seems to be a controversial stance.
Along the same lines, I hate religion but I don’t hate all religious people. --> this isn’t that controversial a stance. They’re both essentially the same to me.
A realistic alternative? The occupant owns the dwelling. That removes the problem entirely. People can’t afford to buy? Well if you can’t own residential property you don’t live in. Prices will correct.
Alternatively, the government historically has given most middle class Americans the majority of their generational wealth through land gift programs, then you gave first time homeowner loans, which could easily be retooled to give the property to those living there and have all payments go towards ownership,
There’s so many options better than someone fucking you in the ass as hard as they can so you can bearly survive.
Anything the media talking points tell them to say. Zero independent thougt
Republican debates in a nutshell.
Not just republicans / politically right-wing oriented folks. From my experience you encounter this everywhere where people haven’t learnt how to have a civilised discussion. An important part of this is the ability to self-reflect and distinguish emotions from opinions from facts. Humans are emotional beings in their core and therefore the most are fallible. It’s only natural to resort to an emotionally driven and often stubborn defence mode if one encounters a contrary opinion. Even more so if that opinion is expressed in an emotionally loaded manner. It’s unfortunately a very counter-productive human behaviour.
And we have that a lot on the internet. Sadly.
https://youtu.be/PkDO1lDNpCk?si=15Lc5sFpcbHrLX5L
Reminded me of this
