ProdigalFrog @ ProdigalFrog @slrpnk.net

A frog who wants the objective truth about anything and everything.

---

Read more

Posts

2,153

Comments

2,490

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Maybe it the family in it moved out because they only needed a quick place to stay short term after moving to a new city? Could be that it’s housing for a college student who has gone back home during summer break?

I think in most cases, short-term housing as you describe would be best served by more dense apartment complexes that are maintained by the community, and the people who stay in them for those short periods. They would be maintained in the same way that public transport or libraries would be maintained, as a public resource that everyone has access to and needs.

The benefit to those who maintain such complexes is that they would also freely have access to use such facilities in other parts of the country. This is not terribly dissimilar to how individual Native Americans were able to travel vast distances in America and expect accommodation from virtually any tribe they came across (that weren't hostile due to a larger conflict), because without such universal accommodation, each tribe would be limited in how far they could travel or trade. It was to all tribes mutual benefit to give each other that accommodation, in an early form of mutual aid (you can read more about that in David Wengrow's book, The Dawn of Everything, a very interesting read).

Maybe a nicer house opened up in the area, so the resident left their old house to go to the new one?

The Dispossessed by Ursula Le'Guin offers an interesting solution to that scenario. In that book, money does not exist, and housing is simply a right that all are entitled to. Couples and families are given larger accommodation when it becomes available, which is managed by an elected housing committee.

A single family home would be unlikely to be empty for long in a desirable area, so I don't think abandoned homes would be a significantly bigger issue than they already are under our current system. As a current example, In Japan, many smaller rural towns with dwindling populations have such an abundance of unoccupied homes, that they're actively paying people to move out to the area, and will sell the house for under $10k in the hopes someone will take them up and maintain it.

It would fall on the neighbors to maintain the house until someone else moved in to it.

Only if they wanted to. There would be no one to force them to do such a thing. They may elect to do so since they would have much more free time in a socialist world (estimates usually suggest around 3 months of community work would be required to give everyone a good standard of living, with the remainder of of the year being free time to do with as they please).

How do you think they are going to feel when some “house jumper” moves in who just lets the place fall apart and moves on to another location because it costs them nothing to let the house go to ruins and they have no personal interest in maintaining it?

How is that prevented in our current society? Many home owners let their home go into disrepair despite owning it. Sometimes this is done out of poverty, or a lack of motivation for upkeep. The only way to force someone to maintain their home in our current society is with HOA's who give fines or even jailtime to individuals if they don't. They don't have the most popular reputations.

Regardless, a community could decide to implement HOA-like rules if they all agreed to it, and then someone could decide if they wanted to live there and abide by those rules, or go somewhere where there aren't any (like our current system).

Cheers :)

I can understand feeling a bit underhanded from it, as she almost certainly wouldn't have wanted me to do any of that had I asked her.

But if the alternative was standing by to let the right-wing propaganda do its job and slowly melt her brain, morphing her into a hateful person who's so painful to be around that it might result in the need to go low or even no-contact... Feeling a little underhanded is a tradeoff I'm willing to make, personally.

My mother did not receive a good education (I recently discovered she did not know how gravity works on even the most basic level, like that the mass of the earth is what made things be pulled down), and has virtually no ability to critically investigate false claims, instead relying almost entirely on gut feeling and intuitions, which makes her particularly susceptible to harmful propaganda.

I suppose I reasoned that my parents would've tried to actively prevent me from viewing harmful material that would've turned me into a bad person when I was growing up, I'm just doing the same for her in her old age by shielding her from material specifically designed for that very thing. Not terribly unlike someone blocking Fox News stations on the TV at old-folks homes.

I tried appealing to her reason with logical arguments for years, but Fox could always offer a quicker, simpler, less nuanced counter argument that fit her pre-existing feeling or intuition, and thus any effort I put in to convince her of some truth would be rendered meaningless. Blocking it the only thing that finally made a difference.

But perhaps the ends of removing those sources was so beneficial, that I'm now trying to rationalize resorting to those means, having my own much smaller Captain Sisko moment 😅

I don't mean regarding maintenance, I mean why are the houses empty?

I could see a very undesirable area having houses left abandoned, just as they are in our current system. But in areas that are desirable, why would a house be left abandoned for so long when everybody needs a place to live?

A group from in the community could keep track of what houses aren't being used so they could direct people needing a home toward them. Perhaps if someone is moving they could inform that group that the house in now available, and give them the keys.

This is a great doc. My own mother was becoming quite reactionary from fox news and trump speeches being recommended to her via the youtube algorithm, to the point where she started claim I had been brainwashed by the liberal media for trying to explain to her that climate change was real and advocating for helping homeless people.

When I was able to, I would try clicking the 'Not interested' or 'Don't recommend this channel' on those videos from her computer when she wasn't in the room, but it would always just recommend the same content from a different channel channel. It was almost impossible to re-train the algorithm, and all it would take is her clicking on one stray right-wing video for it to continue to recommend that stuff.

Like in the documentary, at some point she had an appointment to go somewhere and I happened to have an opportunity to access her computer for an extended amount of time.

What I did was subscribe her account to a bunch of left-wing news sources, and more critically, I installed the browser addon BlockTube, which allows you to create a blacklist that seamlessly prevents videos or channels matching any keywords you choose from displaying on youtube. I added words like Trump, Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, Fox News, Sean Hannity, etc.

Like the father in the documentary, taking those negative sources away took effect almost immediately, and now a year later, she's almost a different person. No longer so reactionary, no more pearl clutching about trans people (she still doesn't like it, but it's not perceived as a threat to society at least), and now believes climate change is real (she took a liking to PBS Terra), I was even able to convince her to install solar panels on her house!

I was lucky that she isn't tech savvy at all, so that blocking addon will never be discovered. She also wasn't deeply invested in fox news or those talk show hosts, so never noticed that they stopped showing up in her feed, nor bothered to seek them out again specifically.

If anyone else has a parent like that, I would strongly suggest trying those two tactics if you ever get the chance.

Could you elaborate what you mean?

None of what I suggested is feasible to achieve within a political framework that is ultimately captured by capital. A handful of small particularly ethical landlords may support reform, but most will not, and the bigger corporate landlords will actively fight it with millions of dollars in lobbying, which the politicians have proven time and time again they are only too willing to accept.

Edit: It will take renters standing up, creating tenant unions, and engaging in direct action to cause real change.

In a theoretical socialist society, people would not be allowed to own multiple single family homes, only the one they're currently using, since renting an essential need creates a power imbalance.

As a stop-gap, all currently rented single family homes (as in renting the entire house, not just a room in a house), could be converted to rent-to-own contracts, so that at some point that power imbalance ends and the renter is no longer being exploited.

I was able to switch myself and my family to vegetarian thanks to how good plant based meat alternatives have gotten. If you haven't yet, I highly recommend trying out Impossible meat products. Their burgers put in an air fryer are indistinguishable from real meat for me, same with their ground beef.

I've been able to cook all of my family's favorite meat based recipes with impossible meat with no changes to the recipe, and all of them, who are life-long meat eaters, tell me they can't tell a difference.

According to the book "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45", a big reason there was so little resistance to the Nazi regime was the lack of public demonstrations against it, and the fear of consequences to stand up, since so few others did.

Large public demonstrations like No Kings are likely a critical asset towards building public confidence to stand up to authoritarianism.

Whether or not a small business owner is for or against raising wages depends entirely on their own ethical compass, and whether that compass is strong enough to turn away from the temptation of extra profit. It's rare that individuals are so altruistic to be able to fully turn off the impulse for profit incentive and personal enrichment.

In contrast, a worker owned coop would not have that issue, as all workers would have equal incentive to raise wages as much as is reasonable while still maintaining the ability for the coop to thrive. Their individual ethics or moral compass wouldn't factor in nearly as much.

That probably the realest thing that can be done without bloodshed.

The most effective non-violent action we can take is to organize a General Strike.

The country would be brought to its knees if suddenly deprived of profit and labor. That tactic was extremely effective in Chile in 2019, and had they not fallen for the trick of liberal reform, they would've had a successful revolution on their hands with virtually no bloodshed.

If you aren't in a union (or even if you are, it's worth dual-carding), please consider joining the IWW to unionize your workplace (bonus: you'll get higher wages, better benefits, and more time off if you succeed!) to strengthen a general strike if we manage to enact one.

• 🌍 US/Global: IWW (Français) - (Español)

And for our international friends, you should join one as well, as fascism is gaining momentum globally. If your country isn't listed below, just contact the IWW directly in the link above.

• 🇦🇷 Argentina: FORA
• 🇦🇺 Australia: ASF-IWA
• 🇧🇷 Brazil: FOB
• 🇧🇬 Bulgaria: ARS, CITUB
• 🇩🇪 Germany: FAU
• 🇬🇷 Greece: ESE
• 🇮🇹 Italy: USI
• 🇳🇱 🇧🇪 Netherlands & Belgium: Vriji Bond
• 🇪🇸 Spain: CNT
• 🇸🇪 Sweden: SAC
• 🇬🇧 United Kingdom: UVW

The Japanese stock market crash of 1987 only recovered in 2020. That's over 30 years.

If that happened in the US, the average american who invested in the stock market and is relying on a 401k to retire would be screwed.

As I said in my previous response, I'm not fan of the Kamala, nor the democratic party for the very reasons you mention. But to frame it as the Teamsters withholding their endorsement for the same reasons that leftists refused to vote for Kamala is disingenuous.

If the Democrats wanted to get the teamsters endorsement, why didn’t they do more to show that they would be a pro-labor, anti-capitol party

Democrats are neoliberals, they'll never be anti-capital (hence their failure), but they certainly weren't as anti-labor as the Republican party.

You keep trying to paint my views as a simplistic sports team analog, but it doesn't hold up. I'm pointing out real gripes with Teamster leadership and the depressing state of the membership, which I wish weren't the case. I am not randomly smack talking them because I'm on some other team (do you think I'm in the UAW? I'm not).

you want to blame “someone else”

I'm not blaming anyone. I doubt an official Teamster endorsement would've made a difference in the election. I'm pointing to it as a prime example that the base of the Teamsters is conservative enough that taking an overt leftist stance is likely political suicide for Teamster leadership.

It suffers a bit from comparison to “The Right Stuff” movie which is also about the early troubled days of a space program

Ah, I've yet to see that film. My only point of comparison is Apollo 13, which isn't terribly similar, so RSP still felt pretty fresh.

The chase scene in the middle seems a little out of place.

Yeah that probably could've been integrated better, though I think there was some foreshadowing in a conversation with the leader of the neighboring country and his aid. Though the chase isn't addressed afterward, I think it does help build up to the final conflict, which may have been a bit jarring without that chase scene to gradually escalate the other country into opting for more extreme actions to prevent the rocket launch.

The Riquinni character is unfortunately underdeveloped.

Fully agree there. Considering how much emphasis is placed on this film emulating Nausicaa's sales figures, and how it was pitched to exec's as a 'Nausicaa-like project', it wouldn't surprise me if they actually did model some of her personality on it.

The wikipedia page has a good overview of how it might be explained thematically

I hadn't read that section until now. I never would've been able to grasp that that was what they were trying to convey with that scene without that additional context, which only further speaks to how wildly poor the decision to depict it in that way was. 100% agree that it really speaks to the general mindset of that era.

You didn't address any of my other points.

I'm basing my opinions on repeated examples of Teamster leadership failing to fight back against the establishment, not 'sports-team' reactions.

When asked about Chavez-DeRemer’s stance on the right-to-work section of the PRO Act, O’Brien said that he is working with senators such as Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) to come up with a version of the PRO Act that “may not include that.”

“That’s the beauty of having conversations with people from the other side, where you can collaborate and actually find out what works for that state, what doesn’t work for it—but more importantly, what’s going to work for the American worker,” O’Brien said.

In the same Fox News interview, O’Brien also said the Teamsters do not want to see anyone losing their job, but that “[Trump] thinks he’s within his right,” when asked about the personnel-slashing Department of Government Efficiency and the Trump administration’s widely decried deferred resignation program for nearly all federal employees. Multiple federal employees unions are currently battling the Trump administration in court over its actions targeting federal workers and federal agencies.

With those statements, O'Brian is publicly stating that he still thinks he can reason and plead with an out-and-out proven anti-labor party that just destroyed federal unions. That makes him either naive or an idiot, and for his sake I hope it's the former.

We need all unions to come together as one movement to effectively fight this dictatorship from taking power, but based on previous evidence, a significant portion of the Teamster membership are unlikely to want to join that fight (obviously, some will, but they will be in the minority).

You're ignoring that a majority (60%) of its membership are conservative, and not endorsing Trump doesn't make it much better, since that lack of endorsement of Kamala (whom I don't even like, but clearly was the harm reduction option) only speaks to the fact that they have so many right-wing members, the leadership had to fence-sit in fear of not getting elected again by their pro-Trump members.

If you're a left-wing Teamster trying to steer your brothers and sisters away from MAGA, then more power to you. But don't delude yourself that the Teamster leadership or right-wing members are going to be the ones leading the charge against this regime.

I would love to be proven wrong, but at best I could see them hopping on the bandwagon if the winds change and the regime begins to implode on itself.

I have this perception from:

1. Sean O'Brian trying to cozy up to the republican party by speaking at the RNC
2. The leadership choosing not to endorse Kamala during the election (since it would piss off their conservative members)
3. the locals repeatedly endorsing local republican politicians this year, despite seeing the destruction of federal unions and anti-worker rhetoric from the republican party
4. First hand account from many left-leaning teamsters that so many of their fellow members are self-procliamed MAGA or right wing Trump voters (according to a source from wikipedia, 60% of the membership voted for Trump) who are only in the union because it directly benefits them financially.

I'd love to see those right-wing members come to their senses and vote to join a general strike, but I just don't see it happening. They even voted not to strike while negotiating their UPS contract, which resulted in (IMO) only modest improvements, and couldn't even secure AC units to be retrofitted to their trucks to prevent people dying of heatstroke.

It was planned before the election, and they likely didn't anticipate Trump would win again.

From what I've seen the UAW leader is fairly left leaning.

The UAW I could see getting onboard, but the Teamsters are so full of MAGA members and Trump loving leadership, I'd be astonished if they did.

It's preferable to break that anti-labour red scare law if it means avoiding the country getting to the point where civil war happens instead.