PizzaMane

And?

Crazy how you guys only care about gun violence when someone other than your own side does it. Especially given that most political violence is right wing violence.

Announcing the shooter as trans front and center in the headline only serves to portray trans people as violent and dangerous, because where would fox news be if not for its continual perpetuation of bigotry against already vulnerable minorities?

Most shooters are straight, cis, white males. Yet you'll never see fox news with a headline going "X shooting suspect identified as a straight, cis, white male with 'kill all blacks' written on gun".

Meanwhile your alternative article you linked shows what better journalism looks like:

"Female suspect fatally shot after shooting at Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church"

And here is an actually good source:

https://apnews.com/article/church-shooting-joel-osteen-texas-ea557401f2eef247020e34297159536a

I guess what I’m saying is that there will be no world war or genocides.

Then you don't understand fascism.

Like, you really think I was suggesting that genocide is not that bad?

People suggest that all the time.

Buy range is important. The closer you are to their car the worse chances you have of escaping.

nothing will change for vast majority of people.

Historically that has proven to be false. The majority of Germans, whether targets of the nazis or not, had their lives upended.

just not as bad as you think.

Genocide is extremely bad

think part of the problem is that what we refer to as landlording includes two separate roles: landlording and property management.

Agreed, 100%

That understanding and change of language will have to be a part of the cultural shift needed to fix it.

I think we would likely see landlords converge towards being mere property managers.

It would certainly help a lot. But after a certain point it would just be diminishing returns due to the aforementioned switching cost.

That said, you are fully correct that the non-zero costs of moving would still give landlords a little leeway to rent-seek, and I’m curious what solutions may exist to remedy that.

I think the remedy for that has to be a little more intentional than leaving it to the effects of a LVT. Corporations should not be permitted to own any form of housing. Multi unit residences should be co-ops/non market housing. If there isn't enough, then the government needs to make more.

So individuals can still own houses, and medium/high density housing is still affordable/plentiful enough.

There seems to be growing sentiment (at least on the internet) to get corporations banned from owning housing, and that's good. But it still needs to pass the hurdle of legalized bribery and our congress failing to represent us. A given policy has 30% chance to pass regardless of public support or disapproval. And policy that benefits the rich obviously has much better chances of passing. This problem within congress is a huge blocking point.

Regardless of whether it 100% solves landlording, I do think LVT and YIMBYism do largely solve real estate “investment” as the meme talks about. Since LVT and abundant housing stop the “line goes up” phenomenon, and LVT in particular punishes real estate speculation, I think they would largely, if not entirely, eliminate the phenomenon of people buying up land/property just to resell later after appreciation. Because, well, housing wouldn’t appreciate under a sufficiently heavy LVT and a strong YIMBY regulatory environment.

100% agreed.

A land value tax is an absolute must, same goes for the rest of what you'll said.

But it isn't a magic wand. The culture still needs to catch up, as many unfortunately still see being a landlord as an actual valid job. And even under a land value tax system landlords could still exist. Nowhere near as exploitative, but they'd still exist.

The concept of a free market relies on a hidden assumption that the choice between products is a free and easy one with a low switching cost. Housing is none of those things. It takes time, money, energy, you need to be able bodied or able to afford movers. If you have a job you might be stuck in a given area. People are heavily de-incentivized from moving, and that's always going to be the case no matter how housing is made and distributed.

As a result, landlords will always have enough room to exist in a housing market, even if it is a land value tax system. So if by "LVT would fix this" you mean stop landlords from existing, LVT is only a stepping stone.

A VERY good stepping stone, but only a stepping stone.

True, but there is significant overlap.

The games are way better.

Because we Citizens need ways to evaluate the people who are running for office to decide which one you want to give her a vote to.

You've had plenty of time to do so for both candidates, as both have recently held office.

Name one presidential election cycle where no debates were done in modern times.

This is moving the goal posts, and a bad way to evaluate the necessity of a given debate.

It would be immoral for someone running for office to not put themselves up for evaluation via debates. No one is owed blind loyalty.

I'm not suggesting blind loyalty. It just seems odd that you're trying to say the public won't have a chance to evaluate the options when that clearly isn't the case. Trump held office from 2016 to 2020, Biden from 2020 to 2024.

If anybody doesn't already know what these guys are about, then a debate won't solve that, as they already pay too little attention.

And besides that, the immorality of platforming insurectionists far outweighs whatever immorality could arrive in the form your suggesting.

Ngl it's also just because femboys are hot.

And then you piss somebody off for not doing anything.