this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
141 points (94.3% liked)

Asklemmy

45342 readers
1037 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.

(page 5) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] masterspace 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

That the dense city movement, of building up, instead of out, is ultimately ceding a huge proportion of our lives (our dwelling sizes and layouts, their materiality and designs, how the public space between them looks and feels, their maintenance and upkeep, etc. etc.) to soulless corporations trying to extract every dollar possible from us.

When we build out, people tend to have more say in the design and build of their own home, often being able to fully build it however they want because at a fundamental level a single person or couple can afford the materials it takes to build a home, and after it's built they can afford to pay a local contractor who lives nearby to make modifications to it.

What they don't have, is the up front resources to build a 20 story condo building. So instead they can buy a portion of a building that someone else has already built, which leaves them with no say in what is actually built in the first place. Ongoing possible changes and customizations are very limited by the constraints of the building itself, and the maintenance and repairs have to be farmed out to a nother corporation with the specialty knowledge and service staff to keep building systems running 24/7.

Yes, this is more efficient from an operating standpoint, but it's also more brittle, with less personal ownership, less room for individuality and beautification, and more inherent dependence on larger organizing bodies which always end up being private companies (which usually means people are being exploited).

In addition, when you expand outwards, all the space between the homes is controlled by the municipalities and your elected government, and you end up with pleasant streets and sidewalks, but when you build up with condos, you just have the tiniest dingiest never ending hallways with no soul.

And condos are the instance where you actually at least kind of own your home. In the case of many cities that densify, you end up tearing down or converting relatively dense single family homes into multi apartment units where you again put a landlord in charge, sucking as many resources out of the residents as possible. In the case of larger apartment buildings, you've effectively fully ceded a huge portion of the 'last mile' of municipal responsibilities to private corporations.

Yes, I understand all the grander environmental reasons about why we should densify, and places like Habitat 67 prove that density does not inherently have to be miserable and soulless, however, the act of densifying without changing our home ownership and development systems to be coop or publicly owned, is a huge pressure increasing the corporatization of housing.

load more comments (4 replies)
[โ€“] Adderbox76 6 points 3 days ago (17 children)

I lean pretty hard left who is also pro death-penalty (IN VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES)

  • If the case has absolutely been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • All appeals have been exhausted.

  • Proof is absolutely undeniable.

  • Guilty party shows no remorse.

  • Crime is suffiently heinous (mass murder, child killing, serial killers, etc...)

  • A legitimate psychiatric board has deemed that there is little to no chance at rehabilitation nor does the guilty party show any inclination to want to rehabilitate.

if ALL those things are true, (plus some that I haven't even considered) then I would rather execute them than pay for their living expenses for the rest of their natural life, or worse see them released at the end of their sentance absolutely knowing that they'll do it again.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think we should create a system where people have a choice. Life in prison or death. I think k it would clear up a lot of the ethical issues of the death penalty.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

that's an interesting angle I'd not thought of before...

load more comments (16 replies)
[โ€“] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Abortion is sometimes the less monstrous alternative in a horrible situation, and it should never be seen as less than that.
Women should have enough social safety nets that abortion would never even cross their minds.
It is mostly Capitalism with its focus on productivity and selling youth and beauty that pressures women into it, women are "freeing" themselves into Capitalistic slavery.

From: "leftist" privileged cis het white guy, feel free to ignore or bash me

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: โ€น prev next โ€บ