Hackers acting as if they're doing a public service by bringing down a free publicly accessible tool is a new level of assbackwardness.

If the goal really was to force IA to increase their security, they would've tried to consult with them. This is more about notoriety and chaos and the hackers have no moral ground to stand on.

Your story is why Im not one to say that landlords are inherently bad people, or similar such statements. Most of us are brought up in a society where we are taught to do what we gotta do to get out of it. Terms like passive income, making your money work for you, investments come to mind. I try not to blame people for playing the game that we are all expected to play.

Still, you bring up common points defending landlords that were also taught to me through my conservative family. The risk that a landlord typically incures, though, is that they have to sell their property and end up having to become a renter, themselves. I don't necessarily think that is much of a risk, when the reward is to take a cut of someone's wages to put toward your own equity. But again, these are statements of theory and I can't say they apply to every case, whereas you are coming from personal experience.

In your mom's case, I'd imagine damage would normally be covered by insurance, but then again I am no expert on renting a home out. I'm sure there are personal frustrations with it, especially if the mortgage is high and the equity is low. I'll have to think more about the power dynamics in a squatter situation.

Anyways, I'm sorry to hear about your and your family's housing struggles, you've given me a bit to think about. Hope I didn't invalidate your experiences

Its true that shelter, food, and health require some level of labor, but I don't think that justifies small numbers of individuals controlling the means of producing those things or the ownership of the things, themselves, and then withholding them from others unless they are compensated. I don't think its true that everyone has to put in effort to attain these things -- I mean look at the very young and the very old! They shouldnt have to be put to work in order to be housed, clothed, fed, cured. I'd argue, in fact, the exact opposite of what you said -- that humans have collectively worked together since the dawn of time to ensure children and elderly are taken care of, and people are fed, clothed, sheltered, etc. and in many cases, those societies had no concept of ownership or money, at all.

I do take a bit of umbrage with your wording about scapegoating landlords and comparing them to immigrants. I'd be really hesitant to compare those who have a high amount of power with those who have almost no power, at all. Scapegoating would imply that landlords do no damage to renters, when they in fact extract wealth from them for the enrichment of the landlord, while also wielding power over them in the form of eviction.

We are talking on two different planes, though, so I do understand where you're coming from. I think you're looking at things from a very practical and real-world standpoint, whereas I'm thinking more in theoretical, or maybe philosophical sense. I don't think we agree ultimately but I appreciate you taking the time to write that

I'll have to think about that...you may be right.

Although, the doctor-patient relationship does come up fairly often in anarchist thought. I think it falls under "justified hierarchy." In this case, it is justified because the relationship is meant to end equally (ie the patient is cured, and the inequality between doctor-patient ends). Similar with parent-child, teacher-student relationships.

But your point about unequal relationships not being inherently wrong still stands...gotta think about it! thanks

Well, I can't summarize all the possible alternatives, because I don't realistically know all of them or all their pros and cons. Certainly one of them is communal-style state-owned housing. Another would be the more free-for-all style you describe, with an emphasis on mutual aid, I'd imagine. That's probably the one I'd go for, because I tend to think the state is generally an oppressive force. Ultimately though our idea of private ownership of land would probably have to go out the window.

You should check out Pyotr Kropotkin's chapter in The Conquest of Bread on Dwellings, really good book overall: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch6.html

I think people are just upset you don't align ideologically with them, even if you're not necessarily ideologically opposite. Plus we're in Lefty Memes, so I think many of them probably expect you to be ideologically in-line. I wouldn't take it to heart. But if you find yourself interested, The Conquest of Bread by Pyotr Kropotkin has some really good thoughts about land ownership, and kinda pushes back against many of the ideas we are brought up in today.

Edit: Oh! here it is online http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch6.html

When I say need, I'm talking about hard needs. Food, shelter, medical care, etc.

I don't consider any of the things that you list as a need (yes, a person may need those things in the moment, but they are not human needs. Those are where the moral argument, for me, comes into play)

But you are right, capitalism is essentially the interaction between a buyers demand for something and an owners supply.

What a mean-spirited comment! Why would anyone listen to what you have to say when you talk to people this way? Its a shame, but hey, if you enjoy talking to people like that, I guess be my guest. I'd rather meet people where they are. Have a great day

Yeah, we're speaking on different terms here. I have also had a good overall experience renting, but that doesn't really have anything to do with crux of the issue, which is that landlords exploit a renter's need for shelter at their own personal gain. We rationalize this by claiming things like "well, the landlord offers a service," but not really, because for the most part the landlord does not need to do any work, they just need to invest money, which in turn increases the value of their property, anyways. Everything they do increases their own personal wealth. That's not to mention the concentration of wealth and power that landlords perpetuate.

This isn't to say all landlords are bad people. We are all taught to make our money work for us, to try to achieve passive income, etc. in order to get out of the rat race. That doesn't change the fact that the relationships that landlords and renting creates are inherently unequal and therefore wrong.

For what its worth, they are not speaking on the same subject as you and I doubt they have even thought about material relationships in the same way you have. They just see buying vs renting and the practicalities of each, but not the implications on the relationship between renter and owner.

I doubt they see themselves as under a boot (I mean, I know I didn't think that when I started renting) or that they are indoctrinated by capital. We all gotta start learning this shit somewhere. I mean I get it: Once you realize that the rat race is bullshit, it's easy to get upset at others who are still running as if it is legitimate. But most of us were running at one point. When you lead people out, it's gotta come from a softer place than "you are indoctrinated and live under a boot."

It's okay that you don't want to own a house. Those are legitimate practical concerns that you bring up. Certainly renting comes with some conveniences, like being able to move, not having to worry about utilities, repairs etc. (although, if you have a bad landlord, you may still have to worry about that stuff)

But at the end of the day, you are still paying for someone else's ownership of an asset and thereby increasing their wealth at the expense of your own. They are leveraging your need for shelter to increase their own personal wealth. It's not about the pros and cons of renting vs buying. It's about the inherently unequal material relationship between you and your landlord.

I didn't read the Zahir but I felt like The Alchemist was a shallow Siddhartha-wannabe when I read it. I couldn't help but think it was trying too hard to be profound

The Alchemist and Song of Achilles are some popular books that I thought were mediocre. Probably not the worst book I've ever read though.

That probably goes to Sean Hannity's Conservative Victory that my grandma gave me when I was 12.

True slop. Fuck Sean Hannity.

Noooo :( I love Moby Dick.

Granted I listened to the audiobook

but abortion

Gimme that leg boy

I'm not the original person asked, just expressing my opinion.

I can't definitively say what I would do, because I was born into privilege. I can try to imagine, though, if I was broken in such a way, I would likely seek revenge. That doesn't invalidate anything I said in my previous comment. I believe Hamas committed atrocities on Oct 7. I would be hesitant to condemn them due to the conditions those atrocities were borne out of. If my family was murdered, my home destroyed, my people oppressed, etc. I'm sure I would feel justified in an act of revenge.

But killing or abducting an Israeli child, who for all I know could grow up being an advocate for my people, would not be justice. Do you think it would be? And how many Israeli children would need to die in order to to account for the endless sins of their forebears?

I'm not a "Israel deserved Oct 7th" person because I think that lends itself to the idea that the victims of the atrocities committed on Oct 7 deserved it. I don't think they did. I do think Israel as a nation brought it upon themselves in the sense that they have been oppressing the Palestinians for however many years, and if they hadn't been, the event wouldn't have happened.

Norman Finkelstein put it in a pretty interesting way -- atrocities were committed on Oct 7, but he would not condemn a violent outburst by people who were born in a concentration camp. He urged leniency and grace that would normally be afforded to people who were born into such conditions and who proceeded to commit unspeakable acts.

Holy, Holy by Geordie Greep. Insanely talented artist

Sorry dude all I'm saying is every comment you write sounds like you're trying to dunk on someone in a weirdly incoherent and haughty way, even this one. I guess, yeah, you don't seem to be engaging in good faith at all and that's pretty lame.

Definitely "yeah that's what I thought you'd say" is a real dick thing to say. You wouldn't say that in person, would you? Do you see what I'm getting at? Sorry dude I don't mean to excoriate you, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at. You can have opposing views without being like that