3 ms·

> If you don't like the status quo you should avoid taking adversarial stances. This is ahistorical. And it’s essentially the argument which has always been us

> If you don't like the status quo you should avoid taking adversarial stances. This is ahistorical. And it’s essentially the argument which has always been used by defenders of the status quo to avoid taking responsibility for the defense as such. But worse, you’re conflating mere recognition of an extant adversarial relationship with initiating it in the first place. You’re arguing that it’s strategically superior to unilaterally concede not just tenants’ interests but any acknowledgment that there even are tenants’ interests.

roenxi 3y ago
It is fairly pro-historical, take the development of democracy as an institution - it depends on an understanding that we'd really all rather see ourselves on the same side and trying to get the best outcome for everyone. Compare that to communist revolutions where they overthrew the hated landlords, then everyone starved. It isn't a be-all and end all, sometimes the only option is to fight. And on the small scale I've had mostly good results by being friendly towards my landlords. But I don't think real estate in New York is the place to draw that line. I suspect the regulation of the market is creating these toxic relations and it is making everyone worse off, except for a few lottery winners presumably. > You’re arguing that it’s strategically superior to unilaterally concede not just tenants’ interests but any acknowledgment that there even are tenants’ interests. I think it is implicitly obvious that the tenants have interests. What I'm saying is if I'm living in someone else's house and my interests don't align with there interests, plan A is to find a way to align our interests. Taking it as a given that our interests conflict then picking a fight, on the other hand, strikes me as dangerously stupid.
- paulmd 3y ago
  what about the capitalist revolutions where they started murderous authoritarian “helicopter rides” and burning people alive inside oil barrels and stuff, or generally just starving or mistreating the populace? funny how that always gets left out of the example, some of these killings likely range into the millions, many backed by US taxpayers. “helicopter rides for leftists” is very much a meme for a reason, after all. And many of those that receive such rides or are burned alive in oil barrel are not, in fact, insurgents, they’re just ordinary citizens who might have spoken out against the regime etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Drum_killings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Drum_killings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Spain) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Spain) yes, “tu quoque”, but these things do happen after many social upheavals, the framing of capitalism as being a bulwark against authoritarian repression is fundamentally misplaced. Many of those capitalist upheavals do go on to oppress their populations too, whether acutely or chronically. The us has hundreds of thousands of people dying from lack of access to health care and general poverty-related deaths every year, our own ongoing holodomor. Violence after a political upheaval is, in fact, rather orthogonal to what system it is rebelling against or who is in control afterwards. Like it’s not tu quoque, it’s just an irrelevant red herring. Plenty of people get murdered by authoritarian capitalist regimes after upheaval too. Because it’s social/political upheaval.

roenxi 3y ago

It is fairly pro-historical, take the development of democracy as an institution - it depends on an understanding that we'd really all rather see ourselves on the same side and trying to get the best outcome for everyone. Compare that to communist revolutions where they overthrew the hated landlords, then everyone starved. It isn't a be-all and end all, sometimes the only option is to fight. And on the small scale I've had mostly good results by being friendly towards my landlords. But I don't think real estate in New York is the place to draw that line. I suspect the regulation of the market is creating these toxic relations and it is making everyone worse off, except for a few lottery winners presumably. > You’re arguing that it’s strategically superior to unilaterally concede not just tenants’ interests but any acknowledgment that there even are tenants’ interests. I think it is implicitly obvious that the tenants have interests. What I'm saying is if I'm living in someone else's house and my interests don't align with there interests, plan A is to find a way to align our interests. Taking it as a given that our interests conflict then picking a fight, on the other hand, strikes me as dangerously stupid.

paulmd 3y ago
what about the capitalist revolutions where they started murderous authoritarian “helicopter rides” and burning people alive inside oil barrels and stuff, or generally just starving or mistreating the populace? funny how that always gets left out of the example, some of these killings likely range into the millions, many backed by US taxpayers. “helicopter rides for leftists” is very much a meme for a reason, after all. And many of those that receive such rides or are burned alive in oil barrel are not, in fact, insurgents, they’re just ordinary citizens who might have spoken out against the regime etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Drum_killings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Drum_killings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Spain) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Spain) yes, “tu quoque”, but these things do happen after many social upheavals, the framing of capitalism as being a bulwark against authoritarian repression is fundamentally misplaced. Many of those capitalist upheavals do go on to oppress their populations too, whether acutely or chronically. The us has hundreds of thousands of people dying from lack of access to health care and general poverty-related deaths every year, our own ongoing holodomor. Violence after a political upheaval is, in fact, rather orthogonal to what system it is rebelling against or who is in control afterwards. Like it’s not tu quoque, it’s just an irrelevant red herring. Plenty of people get murdered by authoritarian capitalist regimes after upheaval too. Because it’s social/political upheaval.