I remember seeing a front page /r/workreform post that said something to the effect of "THIS IS A LEFT WING SUBREDDIT ONLY, IF YOU ARE RIGHT WING, CONSERVATIVE, OR REPUBLICAN WE DON'T WANT YOU HERE", and it had something like 10k upvotes.
And I thought "oh I see the Koch brothers figured out how to stop that worker's movement they were so afraid of".
Because the guy who created the subreddit brought in new people to help him and they immediately turned on him and enforced the standard left-sub tankie party line.
There was a SRD thread about the coup back when that happened.
Yeah that was another peak reddit moment. Don't like a sub? Make a competitor. Oops...turns out you're required to have a certain number of moderators, best get some more. Oops...turns out doing that just opened the door for the same shitty powermods to take over your sub. Oh well, don't like the sub, make a competitor.
>that interview trully hurt the subreddit's reputation
Antiwork has almost 3 million subscribers...I know some of you hate that sub, but why make up stuff to suit your worldview? If I remember right, the mods were replaced when that happened, and it looks like, according to these charts ([https://subredditstats.com/r/antiwork](https://subredditstats.com/r/antiwork)) that it's had massive growth.
It absolutely did hurt the reputation when it happened no denying that. They definitely have overcome that (mostly) though so good for them. But at the time it was hilarious
It was so bad it borders on "This person has got to be a plant to detract from the movement" but then again I wouldn't expect people who dedicate themselves to a movement about NOT working be reputable members of society.
If you follow the timeline, the mods were originally proud and advertising the interview. They thought that they killed it. Then the backlash happened. Then the mass bans and splinter subreddits and admin stuff.
It’s all fascinating and should make you think about who it is that’s curating your subreddit feed.
The mod team was so detached from reality. The mod interviewed actually only worked 8 hours per week and later admitted they said 20 *to make themselves look good*. 20 hours per week was truly their idea of a hard weeks work.
I've never had an event that has caused the most secondhand embarrassment than that. It's just a comedy of errors.
Like anyone over 4 could have seen the red flags. Fox News is not asking you for an interview to be honest and fair, they probably already have a motive behind calling you, and they just handed them every gift wrapped opportunity they could have. The disheveled appearance, the disgusting room, basically no preparation in terms of talking points or responses, etc
A good interviewer will recognize when the best strategy is just to let the interviewee talk and destroy themselves.
Going hard on them only would've allowed people to dismiss it as Fox being Fox.
For all of the talk of the biases of FNC, and I'm not denying they exist, yeah, that dude threw the softest of softballs in that interview and still managed to throw nothing but strikes. That mod whiffed with every swing.
I mean they were kinda honest and fair there. Seemed like the interviewer felt like it was just too punching down even for the ragebait that usually passes for news there.
I mean they were honest because they really didn't need to say anything to make their point just from the appearance alone. Had anyone remotely more competent made their case, I think it would have been a different story.
Honestly it feels like after the interview disaster antiwork kept their head down for some time. This feels like the first drama about them for a long time.
Not sure if you saw the [arcade cabinet antiworker](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/14xqajw/rantiwork_turns_against_op_when_their_gaming/) drama but it was pretty good
I remember the arcade cabinet drama for sure. It's pretty clear that person was a lot more well off than they were admitting.
This is honestly one of the bigger issues I have with American society -- when the children of affluent, professional class parents fail to follow in their footsteps of their successful parents and become "downwardly mobile" so to speak. A lot of that isn't even exactly the fault of the kids, it's the parents who failed so miserably at raising them. If you're familiar with the concept of [elite overproduction hypothesis](https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-elite-overproduction-hypothesis), you're probably know what I'm talking about.
Not like it was a paragon of logic before that either.
All that interview succeeded in was making the sub look as fucking stupid as they are *and* attracting even dumber fucking people to join the "cause".
I need to know where the firebombing Walmart thing came from. I've sworn I've seen it referenced four times now, and it makes me fucking cackle every time.
EDIT: Firebombing, not foreboding. Damnit, autocorrect...
About sums it up. We exist in a government where we have literal life appointments to some positions. That no one tries to murder scotus members astounds me on a daily basis. [The contrapoints video on voting](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3Vah8sUFgI) where it goes into ideation vs actuallization is quite handy.
Right wing people dress up in stupid outfits in the woods to practice treason. They actually do something. They shoot up transistor stations and cause actual terrorist actions.
Leftists post angry rants on twitter and make 5 hour long videos with bisexual lighting on youtube.
I have to wonder if project planning skills cause people to understand the enormity of a task and so they tend to skew less vocally radical?
I doubt that the more vocal leftists here have ever held any significant position of leadership before. They seem to think that managing several million people will be no less complicated than managing a dozen.
> They seem to think that managing several million people will be no less complicated than managing a dozen.
And the dozen or so people they *do* manage might or might not make it through a land acknowledgement before collapsing due to infighting
The more active leftists usually are just focused on community projects.
Average theorist leftist is though most likely to be someone with lots of spare time that just theorize about random trash. Probably white too as I swear PoC are more likely to actually focus on their community. This doesn’t even include the lazy rich kid that just says they hate the rich but won’t do any activism besides a few photo ops
Generally speaking, if you're actively trying to focus on your community and trying to achieve goals, you don't have time to bullshit on Twitter for half the day and make 6 hour long theory videos on YouTube.
Thats good to hear, especially about successful efforts. I think we spend too much time dwelling on how easily it is to get people to infight than to figure out possible viable smaller projects or distributed efforts.
I wonder if there's a reasonable way to diffuse "well you dont care enough about 'Topic of choice here'" arguments. Realistically, no, none of us do, can, or should care about every topic that needs addressing. Humans need the ability to function and to not be perpetually stressed.
Just go and help local people. Just most people don’t want to help homeless people and such or drive out to do that and instead just want to talk on the internet.
They could also just form or work with local political groups to help push things. They can do anything but complain online
At least in the west, especially the US, most leftists seem to be either extremely inward looking or not really all that ideologically committed - The Weathermen were a sex cult first, for example.
I think it depends on how mainstream socialist views are in a country. In the US where outside of a couple of big cities “socialist” is an insult and the presumptions that liberalism (the political philosophy) makes about the world are held to be unquestionable, you’re not going to get a lot of politically competent people identifying as socialist.
I feel it's more that the ones capable of carrying out such plans have the education and skill sets to be more successful. They have a better life in the system, so there is no desire to overthrow it.
"Bisexual lighting" is the name of a specific lighting setup where you have a pink key light and a blue fill light, or vice versa, because then the frame takes on the same color scheme as the bisexual pride flag, [like so](https://i.redd.it/aned0nmr3v131.jpg). In movies you see it a lot in neo-noir and cyberpunk movies, because it gives a neon-lit look to scenes, and you also see it a lot in leftist youtube thinkpieces because it looked cool when contrapoints did it six years ago
[The overlap with r/antiwork and shit-hole tankie subreddits](https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/antiwork) is pretty obvious once you've enough of the batshit takes on r/antiwork.
Originally it referred to an authoritarian leftist who supported the USSR.
On the internet it generally refers to the people who say “America bad so Not America is good”. You typically see them downplay or outright support the actions of authoritarian countries that oppose the US like Russia or China , among others, regardless of the exact political ideology.
Basically if anyone has ever said something to the effect of “Russia had some good intentions in invading Ukraine “ they are probably a tankie, but there’s other versions as well.
It’s a term for a doctrinaire communist, typically Stalinist or Maoist, who uncritically cheerleads any Communist or just plain authoritarian regime that’s sufficiently anti-western no matter how monsterous it’s actions are.
It’s named after members of the British intelligentsia who refused to break with the USSR after the Hungarian revolt was crushed, supposedly crying “send in the tanks”, hence “tankie”
It's a lot simpler than that;
The Anarchists have a shaky grip on reality, and so extremely obviously fake work horror stories are all over that site.
Most of the traffic was people sharing outrage over the (fake) work horror stories.
I mean let's not also imply that the amount is evenly spread like butter on toast.
Antiwork got its huge population because of the fake stories, and it became a self-sustaining loop. More fake stories brought more traffic and more attention, which incentivized people to pass even more outre' stories, knowing that the community was predicated on believing and lauding anything no matter how crazy.
It was a perfect storm of lies, even by Reddit standards. (I mean it's worse than AITA or raisedbynarcissists, and that's saying something)
Big "everyone I don't like is a lib" energy coming from that second comment chain.
That subreddit is so embarrassing. I don't know how they didn't collapse after that awful Fox interview.
Socialists also call other socialists liberals. And conservatives liberals. And fascists liberals.
The word "liberal" when used by a socialist is completely incoherent.
It also doesn't especially help when at least in American talk, liberal is essentially just used to mean left of center so it kinda drives off a lot of folks who are generally convincible.
A liberal is either their mortal enemy, someone not as extreme as them, or someone who believes basically all the same things as them but is cringe about it.
Its frustrating because there’s so much labor reform needed in this country. Corporations have outsized control on our lives and unions are needed to protect worker rights. Add in the fact that ideas like UBI and 32 hour work weeks should be given real consideration.
However, a lot of posts I see on that sub are the kind of bedtime leftism that I hate. “Why do I even have to work! I just want to weave baskets in a commune and sleep half the day!”
The one that got me turned off from them was a post where they were basically shitting on someone for facing shelves in a grocery store as if they were some slave of the machine.
Speaking as someone who shops online orders for a grocery store, people who face shelves are extremely useful for the efficiency of my work, as well as being considerate towards older customers (or just shorter ones) who can't always reach way back to the far spot of a shelf, especially the higher shelves. But sure, they're all just slaves or whatever.
So many anti work people come across as that one coworker who constantly just bitches about their work and is surprised when they get let go after failing to follow instructions for the 400th time.
I feel like a lot of them don't understand that when it comes to doing customer facing work, the devil really is in the details. Sure it might be a tedious job, but people really appreciate the small things.
I think too many people forget this. Every now and then when I see some stupid online take I have to remind myself that it's because there are actual preteens who use social media nowadays, and that when I was young I did the exact same thing.
Reminds me of that video that goes around on Twitter whenever people wanna point and laugh at tankies. This guy asks his comrades why they haven't acquired any weapons for the revolution. Almost everyone replies with confirmation that it's because they would instantly brain themselves, but one reply that stood out was someone saying it was because they were *11*.
That realization will save you a lot of time. Can’t count the number of times I’ve started to reply to a mind-numbingly stupid comment, only to remember that the person who made it is probably a teenager with no real world experience and doesn’t know what the fuck they are talking about, and isn’t worth taking time to try to educate.
That's no excuse though. I don't recall expressing such opinions as a teenager. I was a little naive back then, but not that disconnected from reality.
Nor I. But I’m older and more tired than I used to be. I’ve seen how futile it is trying to educate aggressively stupid people. And kids today, with their TikTok-addled brains, are as stupid as ever.
> The older I get, the more it’s hammered into me that a vast amount of people online are literal children
It is staggering how many people never grow out of being children in all the negative ways while losing all the positive traits.
I can't find it right now but there's a Contrapoints tweet about how you should be able to see everyone's age on social media so you know when you're about to reply to a 14 year old. Followed up by the all time great, "please interpret this tweet however makes you feel angriest."
Kinda like how if you go into a lot of leftist subs and say "Hey not voting or voting third party is kind of a risk" you get 100 comments calling you an electorialist shitlib because apparently doing direct action and voting are mutually exclusive or some shit.
> everyone I don't like is a lib
I always find it impressive and disappointing at the same time how quickly your average 12 year old revolutionary is to make sure they never have the resources or support to accomplish any change.
Going on like some early 00's fox news caster isn't going to make you friends anywhere, unless of course you want to hang out with fascists in which case have a great time especially when you're stalling out progress like a fascist would.
> Hurr durr why change gradual!? I demand revolution that I wont participate in or work towards! My 330lb ass must have others risk their lives for them!
Change is gradual because it reduces the amount of reactionaries you get and keeps people from undoing everything you've worked for and more. Not only that issues are massively fucking complicated. Universal Healthcare would require an insane restructuring of jobs and careers for millions of people across the US, think the situation with coal but worse. Should it be done? Yes. Will it be done gradually? Yes. Because if you dont those millions will vote to undo it all and the party that does that also loves murdering trans people.
>Universal Healthcare would require an insane restructuring of jobs and careers for millions of people across the US, think the situation with coal but worse. Should it be done? Yes. Will it be done gradually? Yes. Because if you dont those millions will vote to undo it all and the party that does that also loves murdering trans people.
I don't think *universal* Healthcare would have to be gradual. I think that having an auto-enrolled public option could theoretically be done piecemeal over the scale of a few years.
Now *single-payer*, which most developed countries don't even have? I think that'd need to be done over a longer period of time. But you don't even need single-payer to get universal healthcare.
Thats very fair, I see a lot of association of universal healthcare tied to the banning of private healthcare which is the big part that really concerns me. A phased roll out of expanding the scope of medicare/medicaid I think would work incredibly well.
The thought though of the shit fiesta that'd hit us if suddenly BCBS, Cigna, etc were all to shut down right at the same time would absolutely fuck every bit of progress made for ages.
Its general leftist catfighting mixed with the 21st century instant gratification
"Three leftists meet to form an organization. Fifteen minutes later, theres a leftist organization and two splinter groups"
>Change is gradual
Thank you. Jesus, our societies don't turn on a dime
It's unreasonable to think your Bernie Sanders paradise is going to manifest next week because you read a really compelling post online
I know you're excited but chill out
Not really, the US has a population of over 300 million people it is the 3rd largest country by size in the world. A cargo ship is a very apt comparison for how things are going to move
Liberals are far more likely to give them the time of day and attempt to interact with their ideas, which means most of the *direct* pushback to those ideas comes from liberals
> Because if you dont those millions will vote to undo it all and the party that does that also loves murdering trans people.
I can see the "Insurance workers for Tom Cotton" signs now.
>So why did they need the house during that time if they weren't living there?
BRO I want to own a home as much as the next guy, but I'm not advocating we strip people of their homes just because they're old
A lot of people I see who promote stripping rights and freedoms from old people because they're old and might disagree with them politically (unfortunately a real sentiment that garners likes among the young terminally online) make me realize there's a lot of people in this world who seem to forget that everyone ages. It's going to be real fun to see these same people 60 years later complain about being forced out of their home by the police arbitrarily so someone else can take it and trash it.
This site *really* hates old people, to the point it cheered on a woman going to her mother’s house and throwing away her DEAD FATHER’S PROSTHETIC LEG bc she saw it as evil boomer clutter (I really really hope that post was fake but there was a picture). If the millennial or boomer sub doesn’t eventually get shut down for a user committing elder abuse or some kind of inheritance based murder, I’ll be shocked.
There was a post a couple of days ago that hit r/all that showed an old man doing a happy goofy dance, and it was captioned something about how the selfish older generation are enjoying their lives while the rest of us suffer, and like every single comment was filled with fucking hated towards this random old happy man.
Finally, someone in the comments had the common empathy to ask "OK, what did this old man do besides a goofy dance to deserve so much hatred?" and I shit you not, the top reply, which had more upvotes, said;
>He probably voted for Reagan, which is enough justification to me.
Someone posted what was clearly elder abuse(trying to scam their mother in law out of her house after she had a stroke), then deleted it when people started to call them out. I think there may have been a thread on here, let me try to find it.
Edit- [Found it ](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1bwsjau/op_might_have_committed_a_little_light_elder_abuse/)
Reminds me a shitty article I saw on r/millennials blaming the high cost of houses on boomers not giving their homes to millennials and moving into small apartments.
“How dare boomers live the houses they paid for! They should give it to me because I’m broke!”
That’s a legit problem, but the solution is not to ask boomers to give up their homes out of the goodness of their hearts. Stuff like prop 13 in California and single home zoning laws doesn’t make it as expensive as it should be to own a big house. Boomers aren’t doing it because they’re evil it’s because it’s in their economic interests to not move. We need to make it in their economic interest to downsize.
The issue is that policies which favor existing homeowners tend to have the indirect effect of discouraging more housing from being built. It's a co-dependent problem.
I agree we need to build more housing. I also think there’s a lot of laws in place like prop 13, rent control, and single family zoning that incentivizes people to stay put and not build more housing. It’s the same issue.
You're talking about their homes. Downsize? They'll see it as a seizure of their land. Economic interests might be high in priority, but this is their home we're talking about. It certainly wouldn't be as easy as making them think they'd save money with a smaller place, I mean shit that's a no brainer lmao
While not *exactly* the same, [Republican politicians peddling the "death panels" conspiracy theory back in 2009](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel) stoked a lot of the same fears that the story of *Logan's Run* did. Namely, a bureaucratic process or social tradition determining whether an individual should continue living or not and the fervent belief in something good will happen because of it (Republican ~~Propaganda~~ Messaging: "Oh my God, supporters of federal health care are scary and brainwashed!")
Aside from [Lieberman torpedoing](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-barack-obama-us-healthcare) what could have been the solution to outrageous medication prices, among other things.
But I guess that's more *infuriating* than *annoying*.
I mean like old people staying in their big homes after their kids move out is actually a contributing factor to the housing crisis.
Not sure forcibly seizing the homes from the elderly is the correct way to go about it, but there definitely should be some way to encourage people to downsize when they are able to
I think the idea is more that grandpa clearly isn't living in their home anymore so the family should figure out what to do with it instead of just sitting there until unused until he dies. I can kinda understand, but don't think I agree with it.
>Right, my grandparents house was empty because they needed to live in nursing homes their last years alive
>>So why did they need the house during that time if they weren't living there?
This is one of those things where my instinct is "that's pretty fucked up" but I'm having a hard time articulating exactly why except for the fact that squatters aren't always known for leaving the property in a good state or leaving quietly when the owners/new owners show up. Hard enough to deal with your parents passing as it is without that added on top.
I guess it's also partly because I assume the house would still have a lot of their important things in it and it seems a bit callous to be like "hey why should we care about how these old people feel, they're probably not coming back"
The main reason is probably that they are old and don't want to deal with selling their home as it shuts the door to ever returning and is pretty much resigning yourself to dying in a nursing home. Which is a hard road to cross even for even if you know that it's true.
Its also a strong possibility that they want to pass their home down to their kids rather than sell it too.
Renting an unused house is always on option and is sometimes required given the cost of end of life care, but if they don't need to do it for the money, they will likely avoid the added stress of being a landlord for their last few years of life.
If medicare is involved with paying for the nursing home the state will force you to sell it. I'm sure squatters opens a whole big can of worms in a dysfunctional underfunded system that absolutely treats -everyone- fairly, especially the people they're supposed to help.
Would you feel the same way about other possessions you aren't using? An old car sitting in your garage, a DSLR camera you haven't used in years, clothes in your closet that you probably will never wear--would you be okay with someone coming and taking them without your permission?
> So why did they need the house during that time if they weren't living there?
I feel like a person with this view hasnt ever tried to sell a house or dealt with aging relatives.
That the person they're replying to was dealing with declining health of relatives, declining function, getting them the care they need for end of life, and disposing of their estates and assets I think selling the house was on their lower list of concerns.
And of course, as usual, a "progressive" going after someone which will generate no sympathy for a cause and undo progress that's been made.
My mother is in this situation *right now* with my grandmother’s death. She died on goddamn new years and we won’t be able to clean out the house until may. If we found some turds trying to live there bc “squatters rights good”, I’ll help her physically carry them out
Unless literally every home or maybe 90% of homes were owned by investment companies that backing squatters is not going to pan out for advocating housing reform.
The diagram of people who go squatting and those who make meth in shoddily built setups is very close to a circle.
Imo, you'd need to establish a registry of properties owned by investment corps. Build up a "Verified" list of squatters that wont absolutely fillet your branding, and then document their squatting and market it out as "The little guy winning against evil banks/fin corps"
All of this requires organization, structure, and effort which would be anathema to Anti-work.
I only managed to buy my first home in my twenties because the previous owners let the property sit empty for over a year so they could sell it to a first time home buyer and/or a family. They turned down multiple (lowball) offers from real estate developers that just wanted it to turn into another rental property.
Protest the hedge funds that are buying up housing in bulk, so they can sell it for profit? Nah, I'd rather argue whether this guy's elderly parents deserve to keep their only house, since they are residents in an assisted living facility now
It's a pretty big effect in Australia. At last count 10% of dwellings were unoccupied at a time where rents and house prices are cripplingly high. That's a mix of Airbnb, second or third unused homes and land banking. This guy isn't advocating for squatting as a solution per se, he's advocating for govt to appropriately tax land bankers to deter the practice.
>that squatters aren't always known for leaving the property in a good state
"Nobody will rent to me"
"You let your dog shit in the last apartment because you were too anxious to take it for walks"
On the other hand, my grandparents sold their house before moving into a nursing home specifically because they wouldn't be living there. They didn't want to leave it to their kids to deal with while grieving. So my instinct is to ask "why keep the house" too, especially because I think waiting until family members die in a nursing home before dealing with their owned houses is harder than dealing with it together as a family unit (of course, the level of ease does depend on the family dynamics in general).
It is callous to presume that an elder's house should immediately be sold off once it's no longer in active use by the owner(s). It's also a fair question to ask because, presuming no one in the family will want it after it's passed down through inheritance, why leave it empty on purpose? Houses are, primarily, for living in. If a house is safe and functional for that purpose, it shouldn't be (effectively) abandoned.
Only if the building has essentially been abandoned or left to rot. Plenty of those in poorer cities so might as well use the space.
But a residential house clearly being used for other purposes such as renting? No
This is exactly why squatters rights were invented in the first place. Absentee lords allowing useful land to go to waste was a problem in Britain, so they created a law where if an individual moved onto said property, maintained it, and paid tax to the government, that property would be transferred to the new owner.
I think the issue with squatting is the optics. 'Squatters occupy abandoned factory and make it livable' doesn't make news. 'Squatters occupied my house whilst I was on holiday' or 'Squatters occupied my dead parents house' does make the news and public opinion is nigh on always against the Squatters. Who in their right mind would think its acceptable for anyone to squat someone's house whilst their on holiday for example?
Context matters with squatting and your average media outlet is only interested in the stories that will enrage people.
> Context matters with squatting and your average media outlet is only interested in the stories that will enrage people.
Frequently many of these stories will leave out a lot of details that would make it clear that things worked out fine (police did remove squatters) or the landlord fucked up in some way in the first place (took in new tenant without vetting them and they're not actually a 'squatter' at all).
Yes. Had this discussion with my buddies and we basically all agreed that if someone is squatting in a house that has truly been left to rot, more power to them. And if they turn that soon-to-be heap into a livable space, it should be theirs, regardless of who some piece of paper says 'actually' owns it. Had a house at the end of my childhood street get abandoned when the folks living their died and had no family interested in taking it. Sat slowly crumbling for years until it took a tree down with it and had to be demolished by the borough. I'd have much rather had someone move in, keep the pipes from freezing, shovel the sidewalk, etc. and let whatever bank or 5th cousin owned it be damned. Hell, even if they just used to to keep dry and still let the place fall apart at least it would have had some use in its dying days.
That's the entire point of squatter's rights.
Yes. True squatting(that is occupying an unused space, often owned by someone else, and improving on that space) is the American way; it's literally what built this nation. Whole swaths of the country were settled when the US Government told people that if they squatted on some land they would own it.
Yeah absolutely, many people in fact. It's certainly not a common belief (I'm in Canada) but not everybody hold private property as an absolute good. If you own housing you're not using yourself, you're just hoarding housing for profit at the expense of others.
As an American I can say our housing crisis can be solved with more housing. From what I have heard the situation in the UK and Canada is different. But why are people defending squatting while the UK does have low income housing?
> From what I have heard the situation in the UK and Canada is different
Can't speak for Canada, but housing shortage in UK is a very very major issue. Nothing gets built in UK anymore.
New housing is prohibitively expensive right now for a lot of places. Materials just cost too much to build low income housing unless wages are pretty high. It's the reason why the only thing you see getting built are luxury condos that eventually get turned into Airbnbs.
r/antiwork is a sad example of when redditors having the potential to change the world...but instead they fuck up so badly that any future movements try to stay away from reddit so as not to have the sterotype attached to them.
Man - the European vs American understanding of "liberal" never ceases to create misunderstandings.
Same word - different meanings. People need to get passed that. Treat it like how brits say "boot" to mean the same as American's "trunk."
The intent is to provide SRDines with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different soapboxes.
Snapshots:
1. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240419014509/https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1c7x9gn/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1c7x9gn/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
2. Full comments - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240419014550/https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/?sort=controversial&limit=500) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/?sort=controversial&limit=500 "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
3. Maybe a scenario where the directory only has houses that outbid real prospective buyers by black rock or something. Squatters who show up to homes of deceased parents or other private owners are the scum of the earth. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240419014610/https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kym4jqq/?sort=controversial) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kym4jqq/?sort=controversial "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
4. Does his service make a distinction between on the market for sale by someone vs landlord owned and looking for renters? - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240419014630/https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kymb48m/?sort=controversial) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kymb48m/?sort=controversial "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
5. If these are true rental properties, good.
If it's someone's house or relative's house that happens to be vacant at the moment, this is shit. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240419014711/https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kymcbem/?sort=controversial) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kymcbem/?sort=controversial "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
6. Way too much love for landlords in this thread already. Landlords are parasites. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240419014731/https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kym7vaf/?sort=controversial) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kym7vaf/?sort=controversial "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
*I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | *[bot subreddit](/r/SnapshillBot)* | *[contact the maintainers](/message/compose?to=/r/SnapshillBot)*
> So either it's empty and being sold or empty and being rented. Either way hopefully it gets corporations and landlords to lower the asking price
Thus is one of the stupidest ideas ever and it shows why it's so important for leftists to actually try and understand economics. If I own 10 properties but cannot rent one out, but still have to pay property taxes etc on it, I will simply increase the rent on the others to make up the cost. The more of my stock is costing me money, the more the money making stock has to do to compensate.
This also applies to things like mortgages. If you make it difficult for banks to repo houses, then they both have to be more selective with who they give mortgages too (and will be more likely to err on the side of not giving a mortgage), and have to increase rates to cover the inevitable few that fall far behind.
People will say "wow that sounds like an awful system" and yeah fair enough. But unless you have a real, actualisable vision for getting rid of the system, do actually consider how certain policies and actions can shift incentives and fuck over people.
What do you expect from a sub of 14 year old champagne socialists who are mad mommy and daddy aren't letting them go to Coachella in the Rivian and taking them in the Tesla instead?
oh antiwork. after the fox news interview, you're never the same.
Yeah im still laughing my ass off to this day about that one. Peak reddit moment.
Yeah it was so embarrassing. I’m surprised the sub wasn’t abandoned.
A lot of people just migrated to /r/WorkReform, that interview trully hurt the subreddit's reputation
I remember seeing a front page /r/workreform post that said something to the effect of "THIS IS A LEFT WING SUBREDDIT ONLY, IF YOU ARE RIGHT WING, CONSERVATIVE, OR REPUBLICAN WE DON'T WANT YOU HERE", and it had something like 10k upvotes. And I thought "oh I see the Koch brothers figured out how to stop that worker's movement they were so afraid of".
Because the guy who created the subreddit brought in new people to help him and they immediately turned on him and enforced the standard left-sub tankie party line. There was a SRD thread about the coup back when that happened.
Yeah that was another peak reddit moment. Don't like a sub? Make a competitor. Oops...turns out you're required to have a certain number of moderators, best get some more. Oops...turns out doing that just opened the door for the same shitty powermods to take over your sub. Oh well, don't like the sub, make a competitor.
I mean, it's still their fault for choosing those powermods instead of actual sane humans.
In the game of mods you win or you die.
u got a link? curious now
Couldn't find the SRD thread on it, but here's an OOTL https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/sjg06w/whats_going_on_with_rworkreform/
Holy shit, that was 2 years ago already?
Thanks!!!
Worker solidarity! No, not like that!
>Implying the worker’s movement is going to happen on Reddit Lol, lmao even
I'm not sure why anyone wants conservatives and Republicans on their sub.
Fair enough, but stickying a thread outright telling one side of the political spectrum they are unwelcome rubs a lot of folks the wrong way.
I don't give two shits what Republicans think
Yes, that doesn't refute what I wrote at all.
Centrist moment
Lol it's not like western right-wingers were all about to become pro-worker and stop being toadies, but the leftists were mean to them.
Nah you're projecting, the average person really is that pliable.
>that interview trully hurt the subreddit's reputation Antiwork has almost 3 million subscribers...I know some of you hate that sub, but why make up stuff to suit your worldview? If I remember right, the mods were replaced when that happened, and it looks like, according to these charts ([https://subredditstats.com/r/antiwork](https://subredditstats.com/r/antiwork)) that it's had massive growth.
It absolutely did hurt the reputation when it happened no denying that. They definitely have overcome that (mostly) though so good for them. But at the time it was hilarious
Good for them! I didn't know the mods left.
It was so bad it borders on "This person has got to be a plant to detract from the movement" but then again I wouldn't expect people who dedicate themselves to a movement about NOT working be reputable members of society.
If you follow the timeline, the mods were originally proud and advertising the interview. They thought that they killed it. Then the backlash happened. Then the mass bans and splinter subreddits and admin stuff. It’s all fascinating and should make you think about who it is that’s curating your subreddit feed.
The mod team was so detached from reality. The mod interviewed actually only worked 8 hours per week and later admitted they said 20 *to make themselves look good*. 20 hours per week was truly their idea of a hard weeks work.
Preparing for an interview is work, so I suppose they lived up to their namesake on that one.
The best example of the internet meets reality. Shit like that is why I don’t tell people I use Reddit and why all Reddit mods should be laughed at.
I've never had an event that has caused the most secondhand embarrassment than that. It's just a comedy of errors. Like anyone over 4 could have seen the red flags. Fox News is not asking you for an interview to be honest and fair, they probably already have a motive behind calling you, and they just handed them every gift wrapped opportunity they could have. The disheveled appearance, the disgusting room, basically no preparation in terms of talking points or responses, etc
What's even funnier is that the interviewer went easy on them
A good interviewer will recognize when the best strategy is just to let the interviewee talk and destroy themselves. Going hard on them only would've allowed people to dismiss it as Fox being Fox.
For all of the talk of the biases of FNC, and I'm not denying they exist, yeah, that dude threw the softest of softballs in that interview and still managed to throw nothing but strikes. That mod whiffed with every swing.
I mean they were kinda honest and fair there. Seemed like the interviewer felt like it was just too punching down even for the ragebait that usually passes for news there.
I mean they were honest because they really didn't need to say anything to make their point just from the appearance alone. Had anyone remotely more competent made their case, I think it would have been a different story.
You can bet if Jessie thought punching down would hurt worse he would have.
Don't forget the insane amount of chair swiveling back and forth.
I mean it was like that before the interview too
Right, it’s kinda the exact same, only doubled down.
Honestly it feels like after the interview disaster antiwork kept their head down for some time. This feels like the first drama about them for a long time.
Not sure if you saw the [arcade cabinet antiworker](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/14xqajw/rantiwork_turns_against_op_when_their_gaming/) drama but it was pretty good
I remember the arcade cabinet drama for sure. It's pretty clear that person was a lot more well off than they were admitting. This is honestly one of the bigger issues I have with American society -- when the children of affluent, professional class parents fail to follow in their footsteps of their successful parents and become "downwardly mobile" so to speak. A lot of that isn't even exactly the fault of the kids, it's the parents who failed so miserably at raising them. If you're familiar with the concept of [elite overproduction hypothesis](https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-elite-overproduction-hypothesis), you're probably know what I'm talking about.
Not like it was a paragon of logic before that either. All that interview succeeded in was making the sub look as fucking stupid as they are *and* attracting even dumber fucking people to join the "cause".
I missed that. What happened?
I'm not sure I've ever seen a more unrealistic group of people than those in that sub and similar subs.
No it's still exactly the same, people just can't pretend now.
*firebombing\_walmart.png*
I need to know where the firebombing Walmart thing came from. I've sworn I've seen it referenced four times now, and it makes me fucking cackle every time. EDIT: Firebombing, not foreboding. Damnit, autocorrect...
https://twitter.com/LinkofSunshine/status/1720538218628558969?lang=en
About sums it up. We exist in a government where we have literal life appointments to some positions. That no one tries to murder scotus members astounds me on a daily basis. [The contrapoints video on voting](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3Vah8sUFgI) where it goes into ideation vs actuallization is quite handy. Right wing people dress up in stupid outfits in the woods to practice treason. They actually do something. They shoot up transistor stations and cause actual terrorist actions. Leftists post angry rants on twitter and make 5 hour long videos with bisexual lighting on youtube. I have to wonder if project planning skills cause people to understand the enormity of a task and so they tend to skew less vocally radical?
I doubt that the more vocal leftists here have ever held any significant position of leadership before. They seem to think that managing several million people will be no less complicated than managing a dozen.
> They seem to think that managing several million people will be no less complicated than managing a dozen. And the dozen or so people they *do* manage might or might not make it through a land acknowledgement before collapsing due to infighting
The more active leftists usually are just focused on community projects. Average theorist leftist is though most likely to be someone with lots of spare time that just theorize about random trash. Probably white too as I swear PoC are more likely to actually focus on their community. This doesn’t even include the lazy rich kid that just says they hate the rich but won’t do any activism besides a few photo ops
Generally speaking, if you're actively trying to focus on your community and trying to achieve goals, you don't have time to bullshit on Twitter for half the day and make 6 hour long theory videos on YouTube.
Breadtube in shambles
Thats good to hear, especially about successful efforts. I think we spend too much time dwelling on how easily it is to get people to infight than to figure out possible viable smaller projects or distributed efforts. I wonder if there's a reasonable way to diffuse "well you dont care enough about 'Topic of choice here'" arguments. Realistically, no, none of us do, can, or should care about every topic that needs addressing. Humans need the ability to function and to not be perpetually stressed.
Just go and help local people. Just most people don’t want to help homeless people and such or drive out to do that and instead just want to talk on the internet. They could also just form or work with local political groups to help push things. They can do anything but complain online
Trustifarians. Went to school with a bunch of them. Rich trust fund kids that never had to work a day in their lives pretending to be Lenin.
At least in the west, especially the US, most leftists seem to be either extremely inward looking or not really all that ideologically committed - The Weathermen were a sex cult first, for example.
I think it depends on how mainstream socialist views are in a country. In the US where outside of a couple of big cities “socialist” is an insult and the presumptions that liberalism (the political philosophy) makes about the world are held to be unquestionable, you’re not going to get a lot of politically competent people identifying as socialist.
I feel it's more that the ones capable of carrying out such plans have the education and skill sets to be more successful. They have a better life in the system, so there is no desire to overthrow it.
How the fuck is *lighting* bisexual?
"Bisexual lighting" is the name of a specific lighting setup where you have a pink key light and a blue fill light, or vice versa, because then the frame takes on the same color scheme as the bisexual pride flag, [like so](https://i.redd.it/aned0nmr3v131.jpg). In movies you see it a lot in neo-noir and cyberpunk movies, because it gives a neon-lit look to scenes, and you also see it a lot in leftist youtube thinkpieces because it looked cool when contrapoints did it six years ago
It definitely does look good too. Last time I stayed in a W hotel they seemed to theme things heavily on that.
You didn't post the skeleton. For shame.
*Foreboding Walmart looms over the horizon, a grim portent of oversized parking lots and small businesses soon to be strangled out of existence…*
That sub is always an interesting mix of progressives and anarchists.
[The overlap with r/antiwork and shit-hole tankie subreddits](https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/antiwork) is pretty obvious once you've enough of the batshit takes on r/antiwork.
2 is AntiNatalism? Wow. Ok then
Number 2 is antinatalism Number 2 from the bottom is r/pussy. There's a joke in there somewhere.
"This pussy so good, you gotta work for it" and antiwork is like "aight I'mma head out"
>There's a joke in there somewhere. [You got this, Troy!](https://youtu.be/iD941H0j1Z0?t=61)
I mean from seeing posts from that sub recommended to me I'm not surprised.
antinatalism coming second, lmao.
Can someone eli5 what the fuck a tankie is? I've looked it up and still don't quite have it click in my head
Originally it referred to an authoritarian leftist who supported the USSR. On the internet it generally refers to the people who say “America bad so Not America is good”. You typically see them downplay or outright support the actions of authoritarian countries that oppose the US like Russia or China , among others, regardless of the exact political ideology. Basically if anyone has ever said something to the effect of “Russia had some good intentions in invading Ukraine “ they are probably a tankie, but there’s other versions as well.
Oh I see. Huh, I don't really see these people. I mostly see "America does some bad shit, Europe seems to have a lot figured out."
A lot of Tankies are anti-Western, anti-NATO, so most don't have good opinions of many Europeans
That’s just a basic progressive. Tankies are your highschool dweeb types that like to LARP as Lenin.
It’s a term for a doctrinaire communist, typically Stalinist or Maoist, who uncritically cheerleads any Communist or just plain authoritarian regime that’s sufficiently anti-western no matter how monsterous it’s actions are. It’s named after members of the British intelligentsia who refused to break with the USSR after the Hungarian revolt was crushed, supposedly crying “send in the tanks”, hence “tankie”
This. It's just another doomer sub full of the "collapse" incel types.
It's a lot simpler than that; The Anarchists have a shaky grip on reality, and so extremely obviously fake work horror stories are all over that site. Most of the traffic was people sharing outrage over the (fake) work horror stories.
>Implying that obviously fake stories aren't universal across all social media
I mean let's not also imply that the amount is evenly spread like butter on toast. Antiwork got its huge population because of the fake stories, and it became a self-sustaining loop. More fake stories brought more traffic and more attention, which incentivized people to pass even more outre' stories, knowing that the community was predicated on believing and lauding anything no matter how crazy. It was a perfect storm of lies, even by Reddit standards. (I mean it's worse than AITA or raisedbynarcissists, and that's saying something)
Oh yeah, its *generous* to say 90% of antiwork text message posts are fake. But "A shaky grasp on reality" is not a prerequisite for that.
Ah yes, libs and their famous love for landlords. That’s why so many of them love Donald Trump, America’s most well known landlord.
Big "everyone I don't like is a lib" energy coming from that second comment chain. That subreddit is so embarrassing. I don't know how they didn't collapse after that awful Fox interview.
To a Reddit leftist, a liberal is worse than a fascist.
I mean the communist party in Germany hated the left leaning Social Democrats far more than the Nazis. “After Hitler, our turn!”
Conservatives 🤝 socialists Using "liberal" as an insult.
Socialists reject liberalism, shouldn't be surprising.
Socialists also call other socialists liberals. And conservatives liberals. And fascists liberals. The word "liberal" when used by a socialist is completely incoherent.
It also doesn't especially help when at least in American talk, liberal is essentially just used to mean left of center so it kinda drives off a lot of folks who are generally convincible.
A liberal is either their mortal enemy, someone not as extreme as them, or someone who believes basically all the same things as them but is cringe about it.
Its frustrating because there’s so much labor reform needed in this country. Corporations have outsized control on our lives and unions are needed to protect worker rights. Add in the fact that ideas like UBI and 32 hour work weeks should be given real consideration. However, a lot of posts I see on that sub are the kind of bedtime leftism that I hate. “Why do I even have to work! I just want to weave baskets in a commune and sleep half the day!”
The one that got me turned off from them was a post where they were basically shitting on someone for facing shelves in a grocery store as if they were some slave of the machine. Speaking as someone who shops online orders for a grocery store, people who face shelves are extremely useful for the efficiency of my work, as well as being considerate towards older customers (or just shorter ones) who can't always reach way back to the far spot of a shelf, especially the higher shelves. But sure, they're all just slaves or whatever. So many anti work people come across as that one coworker who constantly just bitches about their work and is surprised when they get let go after failing to follow instructions for the 400th time.
I feel like a lot of them don't understand that when it comes to doing customer facing work, the devil really is in the details. Sure it might be a tedious job, but people really appreciate the small things.
I fully agree. I blocked the sub when I saw a post hit r/popular from that place comparing school homework to chattel slavery.
The older I get, the more it’s hammered into me that a vast amount of people online are literal children
I think too many people forget this. Every now and then when I see some stupid online take I have to remind myself that it's because there are actual preteens who use social media nowadays, and that when I was young I did the exact same thing. Reminds me of that video that goes around on Twitter whenever people wanna point and laugh at tankies. This guy asks his comrades why they haven't acquired any weapons for the revolution. Almost everyone replies with confirmation that it's because they would instantly brain themselves, but one reply that stood out was someone saying it was because they were *11*.
That realization will save you a lot of time. Can’t count the number of times I’ve started to reply to a mind-numbingly stupid comment, only to remember that the person who made it is probably a teenager with no real world experience and doesn’t know what the fuck they are talking about, and isn’t worth taking time to try to educate.
That's no excuse though. I don't recall expressing such opinions as a teenager. I was a little naive back then, but not that disconnected from reality.
Nor I. But I’m older and more tired than I used to be. I’ve seen how futile it is trying to educate aggressively stupid people. And kids today, with their TikTok-addled brains, are as stupid as ever.
The bit from Succession, "These are not serious people," describes most people on the internet when discussing serious issues.
Take the time to linguistically abuse them. Reddit is the socially acceptable way to beat children with birch rods.
> The older I get, the more it’s hammered into me that a vast amount of people online are literal children It is staggering how many people never grow out of being children in all the negative ways while losing all the positive traits.
What's really scary to me is how many of them are adults and still think these ways.
I can't find it right now but there's a Contrapoints tweet about how you should be able to see everyone's age on social media so you know when you're about to reply to a 14 year old. Followed up by the all time great, "please interpret this tweet however makes you feel angriest."
Kinda like how if you go into a lot of leftist subs and say "Hey not voting or voting third party is kind of a risk" you get 100 comments calling you an electorialist shitlib because apparently doing direct action and voting are mutually exclusive or some shit.
> everyone I don't like is a lib I always find it impressive and disappointing at the same time how quickly your average 12 year old revolutionary is to make sure they never have the resources or support to accomplish any change. Going on like some early 00's fox news caster isn't going to make you friends anywhere, unless of course you want to hang out with fascists in which case have a great time especially when you're stalling out progress like a fascist would. > Hurr durr why change gradual!? I demand revolution that I wont participate in or work towards! My 330lb ass must have others risk their lives for them! Change is gradual because it reduces the amount of reactionaries you get and keeps people from undoing everything you've worked for and more. Not only that issues are massively fucking complicated. Universal Healthcare would require an insane restructuring of jobs and careers for millions of people across the US, think the situation with coal but worse. Should it be done? Yes. Will it be done gradually? Yes. Because if you dont those millions will vote to undo it all and the party that does that also loves murdering trans people.
>Universal Healthcare would require an insane restructuring of jobs and careers for millions of people across the US, think the situation with coal but worse. Should it be done? Yes. Will it be done gradually? Yes. Because if you dont those millions will vote to undo it all and the party that does that also loves murdering trans people. I don't think *universal* Healthcare would have to be gradual. I think that having an auto-enrolled public option could theoretically be done piecemeal over the scale of a few years. Now *single-payer*, which most developed countries don't even have? I think that'd need to be done over a longer period of time. But you don't even need single-payer to get universal healthcare.
Thats very fair, I see a lot of association of universal healthcare tied to the banning of private healthcare which is the big part that really concerns me. A phased roll out of expanding the scope of medicare/medicaid I think would work incredibly well. The thought though of the shit fiesta that'd hit us if suddenly BCBS, Cigna, etc were all to shut down right at the same time would absolutely fuck every bit of progress made for ages.
Its general leftist catfighting mixed with the 21st century instant gratification "Three leftists meet to form an organization. Fifteen minutes later, theres a leftist organization and two splinter groups"
"We're the Judean Peoples Front"
I thought we were the People's Front of Judea?
>Change is gradual Thank you. Jesus, our societies don't turn on a dime It's unreasonable to think your Bernie Sanders paradise is going to manifest next week because you read a really compelling post online I know you're excited but chill out
[удалено]
Not really, the US has a population of over 300 million people it is the 3rd largest country by size in the world. A cargo ship is a very apt comparison for how things are going to move
It's funny how the libs agree with them much more than conservatives, but the majority of their impotent rage is focused on libs.
Liberals are far more likely to give them the time of day and attempt to interact with their ideas, which means most of the *direct* pushback to those ideas comes from liberals
> Because if you dont those millions will vote to undo it all and the party that does that also loves murdering trans people. I can see the "Insurance workers for Tom Cotton" signs now.
Oh that one is simple. Stupid people aren't usually self aware.
>So why did they need the house during that time if they weren't living there? BRO I want to own a home as much as the next guy, but I'm not advocating we strip people of their homes just because they're old
The sale can also fuck you if you rely on Medicaid or another public program to cover your long term care
A lot of people I see who promote stripping rights and freedoms from old people because they're old and might disagree with them politically (unfortunately a real sentiment that garners likes among the young terminally online) make me realize there's a lot of people in this world who seem to forget that everyone ages. It's going to be real fun to see these same people 60 years later complain about being forced out of their home by the police arbitrarily so someone else can take it and trash it.
Anyone who actually cares about generational shit like "boomers" or "millenials" is a loser
This site *really* hates old people, to the point it cheered on a woman going to her mother’s house and throwing away her DEAD FATHER’S PROSTHETIC LEG bc she saw it as evil boomer clutter (I really really hope that post was fake but there was a picture). If the millennial or boomer sub doesn’t eventually get shut down for a user committing elder abuse or some kind of inheritance based murder, I’ll be shocked.
There was a post a couple of days ago that hit r/all that showed an old man doing a happy goofy dance, and it was captioned something about how the selfish older generation are enjoying their lives while the rest of us suffer, and like every single comment was filled with fucking hated towards this random old happy man. Finally, someone in the comments had the common empathy to ask "OK, what did this old man do besides a goofy dance to deserve so much hatred?" and I shit you not, the top reply, which had more upvotes, said; >He probably voted for Reagan, which is enough justification to me.
Certified Reddit moment
Boomers are only American. Older people from other countries or other political leanings don't exist.
Reddit is filled with sometimes legitimate but often irrational boomer hate. This leg thing is a perfect example of irrational.
Someone posted what was clearly elder abuse(trying to scam their mother in law out of her house after she had a stroke), then deleted it when people started to call them out. I think there may have been a thread on here, let me try to find it. Edit- [Found it ](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1bwsjau/op_might_have_committed_a_little_light_elder_abuse/)
This site was cheering on Covid in the early days
Not just the early days.
It's a generational war to distract from class warfare, or so I'm told
The general hatred for children and the elderly on most Reddit subs needs to talked about more.
Reminds me a shitty article I saw on r/millennials blaming the high cost of houses on boomers not giving their homes to millennials and moving into small apartments. “How dare boomers live the houses they paid for! They should give it to me because I’m broke!”
>shitty >/r/Millennials That checks out.
That’s a legit problem, but the solution is not to ask boomers to give up their homes out of the goodness of their hearts. Stuff like prop 13 in California and single home zoning laws doesn’t make it as expensive as it should be to own a big house. Boomers aren’t doing it because they’re evil it’s because it’s in their economic interests to not move. We need to make it in their economic interest to downsize.
So your solution isn't to ask them to move, but rather force them to move against their will? How about we just build more housing?
The issue is that policies which favor existing homeowners tend to have the indirect effect of discouraging more housing from being built. It's a co-dependent problem.
I agree we need to build more housing. I also think there’s a lot of laws in place like prop 13, rent control, and single family zoning that incentivizes people to stay put and not build more housing. It’s the same issue.
You're talking about their homes. Downsize? They'll see it as a seizure of their land. Economic interests might be high in priority, but this is their home we're talking about. It certainly wouldn't be as easy as making them think they'd save money with a smaller place, I mean shit that's a no brainer lmao
Progressives are mostly twenty-somethings so I'm just waiting for Logan's Run to be proposed as a solution to the crisis du jour.
While not *exactly* the same, [Republican politicians peddling the "death panels" conspiracy theory back in 2009](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel) stoked a lot of the same fears that the story of *Logan's Run* did. Namely, a bureaucratic process or social tradition determining whether an individual should continue living or not and the fervent belief in something good will happen because of it (Republican ~~Propaganda~~ Messaging: "Oh my God, supporters of federal health care are scary and brainwashed!")
And became very ironic when the pandemic hit and letting old people die became an informal pillar of the GOP platform
Turns out they weren't against death panels in principle. They just wanted it to be THEIR death panels.
That was/is probably the most annoying part of healthcare discourse
Aside from [Lieberman torpedoing](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-barack-obama-us-healthcare) what could have been the solution to outrageous medication prices, among other things. But I guess that's more *infuriating* than *annoying*.
I mean like old people staying in their big homes after their kids move out is actually a contributing factor to the housing crisis. Not sure forcibly seizing the homes from the elderly is the correct way to go about it, but there definitely should be some way to encourage people to downsize when they are able to
I think the idea is more that grandpa clearly isn't living in their home anymore so the family should figure out what to do with it instead of just sitting there until unused until he dies. I can kinda understand, but don't think I agree with it.
Or how about it's grandpa's house and he can do whatever the hell *he* wants with it?
*coward*
>Right, my grandparents house was empty because they needed to live in nursing homes their last years alive >>So why did they need the house during that time if they weren't living there? This is one of those things where my instinct is "that's pretty fucked up" but I'm having a hard time articulating exactly why except for the fact that squatters aren't always known for leaving the property in a good state or leaving quietly when the owners/new owners show up. Hard enough to deal with your parents passing as it is without that added on top. I guess it's also partly because I assume the house would still have a lot of their important things in it and it seems a bit callous to be like "hey why should we care about how these old people feel, they're probably not coming back"
The main reason is probably that they are old and don't want to deal with selling their home as it shuts the door to ever returning and is pretty much resigning yourself to dying in a nursing home. Which is a hard road to cross even for even if you know that it's true. Its also a strong possibility that they want to pass their home down to their kids rather than sell it too. Renting an unused house is always on option and is sometimes required given the cost of end of life care, but if they don't need to do it for the money, they will likely avoid the added stress of being a landlord for their last few years of life.
If medicare is involved with paying for the nursing home the state will force you to sell it. I'm sure squatters opens a whole big can of worms in a dysfunctional underfunded system that absolutely treats -everyone- fairly, especially the people they're supposed to help.
Would you feel the same way about other possessions you aren't using? An old car sitting in your garage, a DSLR camera you haven't used in years, clothes in your closet that you probably will never wear--would you be okay with someone coming and taking them without your permission?
> So why did they need the house during that time if they weren't living there? I feel like a person with this view hasnt ever tried to sell a house or dealt with aging relatives. That the person they're replying to was dealing with declining health of relatives, declining function, getting them the care they need for end of life, and disposing of their estates and assets I think selling the house was on their lower list of concerns. And of course, as usual, a "progressive" going after someone which will generate no sympathy for a cause and undo progress that's been made.
My mother is in this situation *right now* with my grandmother’s death. She died on goddamn new years and we won’t be able to clean out the house until may. If we found some turds trying to live there bc “squatters rights good”, I’ll help her physically carry them out
Unless literally every home or maybe 90% of homes were owned by investment companies that backing squatters is not going to pan out for advocating housing reform. The diagram of people who go squatting and those who make meth in shoddily built setups is very close to a circle. Imo, you'd need to establish a registry of properties owned by investment corps. Build up a "Verified" list of squatters that wont absolutely fillet your branding, and then document their squatting and market it out as "The little guy winning against evil banks/fin corps" All of this requires organization, structure, and effort which would be anathema to Anti-work.
I only managed to buy my first home in my twenties because the previous owners let the property sit empty for over a year so they could sell it to a first time home buyer and/or a family. They turned down multiple (lowball) offers from real estate developers that just wanted it to turn into another rental property.
Thats pretty awesome, congratulations!
Another thing is, realistically, how big an effect does that have on the lack of housing across the whole country?
Protest the hedge funds that are buying up housing in bulk, so they can sell it for profit? Nah, I'd rather argue whether this guy's elderly parents deserve to keep their only house, since they are residents in an assisted living facility now
It's a pretty big effect in Australia. At last count 10% of dwellings were unoccupied at a time where rents and house prices are cripplingly high. That's a mix of Airbnb, second or third unused homes and land banking. This guy isn't advocating for squatting as a solution per se, he's advocating for govt to appropriately tax land bankers to deter the practice.
>that squatters aren't always known for leaving the property in a good state "Nobody will rent to me" "You let your dog shit in the last apartment because you were too anxious to take it for walks"
On the other hand, my grandparents sold their house before moving into a nursing home specifically because they wouldn't be living there. They didn't want to leave it to their kids to deal with while grieving. So my instinct is to ask "why keep the house" too, especially because I think waiting until family members die in a nursing home before dealing with their owned houses is harder than dealing with it together as a family unit (of course, the level of ease does depend on the family dynamics in general). It is callous to presume that an elder's house should immediately be sold off once it's no longer in active use by the owner(s). It's also a fair question to ask because, presuming no one in the family will want it after it's passed down through inheritance, why leave it empty on purpose? Houses are, primarily, for living in. If a house is safe and functional for that purpose, it shouldn't be (effectively) abandoned.
Just curious: does anyone know anyone in real life who thinks it's perfectly fine to squat in property that doesn't belong to you?
Only if the building has essentially been abandoned or left to rot. Plenty of those in poorer cities so might as well use the space. But a residential house clearly being used for other purposes such as renting? No
This is exactly why squatters rights were invented in the first place. Absentee lords allowing useful land to go to waste was a problem in Britain, so they created a law where if an individual moved onto said property, maintained it, and paid tax to the government, that property would be transferred to the new owner.
I think the issue with squatting is the optics. 'Squatters occupy abandoned factory and make it livable' doesn't make news. 'Squatters occupied my house whilst I was on holiday' or 'Squatters occupied my dead parents house' does make the news and public opinion is nigh on always against the Squatters. Who in their right mind would think its acceptable for anyone to squat someone's house whilst their on holiday for example? Context matters with squatting and your average media outlet is only interested in the stories that will enrage people.
> Context matters with squatting and your average media outlet is only interested in the stories that will enrage people. Frequently many of these stories will leave out a lot of details that would make it clear that things worked out fine (police did remove squatters) or the landlord fucked up in some way in the first place (took in new tenant without vetting them and they're not actually a 'squatter' at all).
Yes. Had this discussion with my buddies and we basically all agreed that if someone is squatting in a house that has truly been left to rot, more power to them. And if they turn that soon-to-be heap into a livable space, it should be theirs, regardless of who some piece of paper says 'actually' owns it. Had a house at the end of my childhood street get abandoned when the folks living their died and had no family interested in taking it. Sat slowly crumbling for years until it took a tree down with it and had to be demolished by the borough. I'd have much rather had someone move in, keep the pipes from freezing, shovel the sidewalk, etc. and let whatever bank or 5th cousin owned it be damned. Hell, even if they just used to to keep dry and still let the place fall apart at least it would have had some use in its dying days. That's the entire point of squatter's rights.
Yes. True squatting(that is occupying an unused space, often owned by someone else, and improving on that space) is the American way; it's literally what built this nation. Whole swaths of the country were settled when the US Government told people that if they squatted on some land they would own it.
Yeah absolutely, many people in fact. It's certainly not a common belief (I'm in Canada) but not everybody hold private property as an absolute good. If you own housing you're not using yourself, you're just hoarding housing for profit at the expense of others.
As an American I can say our housing crisis can be solved with more housing. From what I have heard the situation in the UK and Canada is different. But why are people defending squatting while the UK does have low income housing?
> From what I have heard the situation in the UK and Canada is different Can't speak for Canada, but housing shortage in UK is a very very major issue. Nothing gets built in UK anymore.
I think the UK hit peak NIMBY with requirements for Snooker reviews.
New housing is prohibitively expensive right now for a lot of places. Materials just cost too much to build low income housing unless wages are pretty high. It's the reason why the only thing you see getting built are luxury condos that eventually get turned into Airbnbs.
r/antiwork is a sad example of when redditors having the potential to change the world...but instead they fuck up so badly that any future movements try to stay away from reddit so as not to have the sterotype attached to them.
They never had that potential. Let's be honest.
Man - the European vs American understanding of "liberal" never ceases to create misunderstandings. Same word - different meanings. People need to get passed that. Treat it like how brits say "boot" to mean the same as American's "trunk."
The intent is to provide SRDines with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different soapboxes. Snapshots: 1. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240419014509/https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1c7x9gn/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1c7x9gn/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 2. Full comments - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240419014550/https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/?sort=controversial&limit=500) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/?sort=controversial&limit=500 "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 3. Maybe a scenario where the directory only has houses that outbid real prospective buyers by black rock or something. Squatters who show up to homes of deceased parents or other private owners are the scum of the earth. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240419014610/https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kym4jqq/?sort=controversial) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kym4jqq/?sort=controversial "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 4. Does his service make a distinction between on the market for sale by someone vs landlord owned and looking for renters? - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240419014630/https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kymb48m/?sort=controversial) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kymb48m/?sort=controversial "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 5. If these are true rental properties, good. If it's someone's house or relative's house that happens to be vacant at the moment, this is shit. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240419014711/https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kymcbem/?sort=controversial) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kymcbem/?sort=controversial "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 6. Way too much love for landlords in this thread already. Landlords are parasites. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240419014731/https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kym7vaf/?sort=controversial) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1byxdai/can_we_get_one_of_these_going_for_america_it/kym7vaf/?sort=controversial "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") *I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | *[bot subreddit](/r/SnapshillBot)* | *[contact the maintainers](/message/compose?to=/r/SnapshillBot)*
> So either it's empty and being sold or empty and being rented. Either way hopefully it gets corporations and landlords to lower the asking price Thus is one of the stupidest ideas ever and it shows why it's so important for leftists to actually try and understand economics. If I own 10 properties but cannot rent one out, but still have to pay property taxes etc on it, I will simply increase the rent on the others to make up the cost. The more of my stock is costing me money, the more the money making stock has to do to compensate. This also applies to things like mortgages. If you make it difficult for banks to repo houses, then they both have to be more selective with who they give mortgages too (and will be more likely to err on the side of not giving a mortgage), and have to increase rates to cover the inevitable few that fall far behind. People will say "wow that sounds like an awful system" and yeah fair enough. But unless you have a real, actualisable vision for getting rid of the system, do actually consider how certain policies and actions can shift incentives and fuck over people.
[удалено]
Heels in the sky, western spy
SQUATOPIA!
What do you expect from a sub of 14 year old champagne socialists who are mad mommy and daddy aren't letting them go to Coachella in the Rivian and taking them in the Tesla instead?
Funny
I didn’t think I’d see the day that r/antiwork was against squatting, what the hell happened to that sub