We met in college. We are in the same class, and just sat together.

Funnily, I wanted to organize a D&D round, so I texted in the common class group if anyone was interested. No one publicly replied, and she felt sad for me - so she texted me privately and told me that she hopes someone answered me. That’s how we began texting and talking.

I think that’s a cute story :)

Thank you for your reply! I will think about the first point. I didn’t consider that second homes tend to increase property values in the area - that’s a valid point.

I disagree with your second paragraph. When you rent a house at its price, aka only and exactly the price for electricity, water, and repairs of the building, I don’t see any exploitation in it because you effectively aren’t making any profit from the person living there.

However, I’m replying from a German standpoint. I presume that in the USA, the situation is different and in an advanced stadium of dystopican capitalism, so probably my thoughts aren’t fully applicable.

Thank you for replying! I appreciate it.

Mh, I agree, but also disagree to some extent. I am a Democratic socialist and think that means of production should be used for the greater good, so keeping a house in order to make profit is exactly that: private property of means of production with the goal of $$$.

However, I think the question goes deeper than that. I think it’s absolutely valid for a family to have a secondary home, e.g. when they want to go to a vacation. Sometimes renting out a hostel is difficult, one might not like the hostels available, or a plethora of other reasons. As soon as the person owning the house uses it for themselves for a significant amount of time, it isn’t really a means of production anymore, but a private property. What is important in my opinion is that the time when the house isn’t used by the owner, other people have a chance to use it - cheap AirBnB covering the costs maybe?

Tl;DR - renting the house out to others to make profit: yes, unethical. Earning money by a human necessity is, in my opinion, not right. Using the house yourself and/or renting it for sustenance cost: absolutely valid. You don’t use the means of production to take money from the people, you use it for your own (and society’s) benefit.

Oh what?! Oh my gosh, these are terrible news. For all not in the loop, here is an Article.

I am really disappointed by this. This is just such a bad monopolistic practice that I’m wondering how in their right mind anyone from Reddit decided this was a good deal to make. On the other hand, it is Reddit, so what did I expect :/

The joke never gets old ;)

Thank you! I really appreciate it. I think so too, especially because learning history provides one with a better understanding and contextualization of current events. I’m still wondering why exactly I picked the Roman Empire, but I also think that’s a pretty nice topic to delve into :)

Once again, thanks for your comment - it really matters to me!

I’ve delved way too deep into the fall of the Western Roman Empire. I think I know a lot about Majorian, Stilicho, Aetius and Ricimer. My gf at this point even knows who Honorius is and why he was a bad emperor. Edit: and that he had chicken :)

When I saw the meme “How often do you daily think about the Roman Empire”, I knew that it was about me, because the answer is yes :/

Same for me. When I go to the big subs, like AITA, I am surprised by the style of conversation the people have and just the overall tone. I’ve asked questions here on Lemmy which go into an AITA direction, and the responses are so much more helpful and kind and respectful - you really notice the difference.

Also, far less bots.

Thanks for sharing it! I didnt know it existed, but it seems to be such a cool resource :)

Thanks - I appreciate the support. And yes, I absolutely agree.

I think I am deeply troubled by some of the comments I’m reading. I absolutely agree that Trumps ascent to presidency is a huge threat to democracy, and it’s important to do everything we can to stop it.

But in my opinion it is extremely inappropriate to wish someone dead, even someone as harmful to American Democracy as Trump. No person deserves to die for things they’ve done - this is the main reason why the UN urges its members to outlaw the death penalty. And when I read comments that people would want the killer to just do one job, or that he shouldn’t have missed, this doesn’t work with my ideal of respect for the human life.

I am really sad about these comments.

Debian_12_bookworm_non-free-firmware.iso

It sounds absolutely and completely overpowered for a phone… … Well, what did I expect ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Interesting! I didn’t know this existed, but I can align myself pretty well with this terminus. Thank you :)

Pixelfed, and occasionally Mastodon. I love the Pixelfed community, it always seems just very chill and focused on making great pictures.

Yes, definitely. For me, it is kind of a meditation - while I work out, I can’t really think a lot, and after working out I’m exhausted. It is just a reset for thoughts.

Okay, let me rephrase - for me it sounds that if people work together, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Aka, if I am one of the twenty who sit around and do nothing, stand up, I on my own probably won’t be able to block the policy. But if I stand up, there’s a good chance others will get up as well and do. Or maybe I’ll discover that after I stand up, there are three others of whom I haven’t suspected anything, but who now also oppose the policy. And thus by standing up, you also influence others. If that is successful (aka if you can stop the policy or not), you can only find out afterwards.

Is that right?

Then every single person who takes any action would make a difference in the world and change the situation, which obviousy isn’t true. Lots of people have tried rebelling and fighting against a regime, but failed. So this logic doesn’t apply in every case, does it?

I think the argument is kinda weak, because from my decision to do something (like construct a weapon) the other workers at the factories don’t change their opinion. For these kinds of events to happen, there must either already be a huge grudge in the workforce, so that you’re the “tipping point”, or you have to be as charismatic as a reborn Jesus and convince everyone to follow you. Both of these events seem implausible here. Thus, your decision to make or not make a weapon will not influence others, and the outcome won’t be significant.

However, I’d love to have your input on it. I think the question if for the judgment of an action it is important that it is significant (or not) is a fundamentally important one, so I’d really appreciate your response here :)

Very good criterias! I think OP posted a great question, and your philosophy seems to be a very interesting merge of a virtue-based approach (that A/B is always good/bad) and an utilitarian one. I like it at a lot :)