I don’t have anything against .ml users as a whole. As you say, every instance has its bad apples.
But .ml has the most hostile and heavy-handed admins of any instance I know of. It makes it impossible to have real conversations because talking about certain topics will get you instantly banned from the whole instance. It’s not about socialism either. In fact that’s part of the problem—I’m a leftist myself who would like to discuss leftism there and I used to enjoy doing so, but at this point that’s only possible if you follow the admin’s ideological beliefs on practically everything to a tee. It’s a toxic environment where real conversations can’t take place.
For me it was a blanket ban that finally caused me to unsubscribe from every ml community. If it wasn’t for that then it might be OK to keep hosting a non-political sub but the censorship over there is so aggressive and widespread that it’s very difficult to avoid.
I would say think about migration because if anything the problem is getting worse over time.
Maybe a way to make use of all those unused balconies. I’m on board.
What? I don’t think this is true.
Many places allow toplessness but very few allow full nudity.
So, this is bad and all that but I kind of hate this narrative right now. Leadership of all types of organizations make way too much money and engage in nepotism. So why are we talking about homeless services in particular? Are they worse than other industries for some reason? Or is this just part of an agenda by certain powerful ideologues to cut services to homelessness?
So far I don’t see anything unique about all these stories that isn’t also happening elsewhere. But I’d love to have a conversation about top-down organizational structure generally and the problems it causes.
Not necessarily. The advantages of the minimum wage is that the benefits go directly to low wage earners who can use the money. So even though it imposes costs on the rest of society, it’s worth it because those are the people who need that money the most (other than the unemployed).
Rent control primarily benefits renters who stay put for extended periods. While this does have some benefits in allowing tenants who would otherwise be forced out of gentrifying neighborhoods to stay, the problem is that it doesn’t benefit their kids or other less resourced people who didn’t get in early. Since the benefits accrue the longer you stay put, it’s usually older tenants who benefit the most and they often have higher than average levels of wealth among tenants. Meanwhile, tenants who don’t get in early can be harmed by increased prices overall.
It’s a complex policy with many pros and cons. Overall I don’t think it’s a smart one but either way I don’t think we can just point to minimum wage increases and say that means rent control is good.
Friends? What does that mean?
Dude famously hates being around other people, that’s why he hates transit so much. I’m sure in his mind it makes perfect sense.
This is based on a widespread misconception that non-profit organizations are not also pursuing money. They don’t get to take home the profits but they still want to maximize revenue and minimize costs to grow and sustain themselves. So while they don’t behave exactly the same as privately owned orgs, there is a lot of overlap.
Aren’t SocDems a type of liberal?
They explicitly say they’re not and I’ve had a number of interactions that suggest otherwise. Where are you getting this idea from?