It’s a broken, barbaric system. I’m sure you’ve looked at all your options.
The only thing I can say is that it’s not the “best way”. That path is held away from you, gated with a ransom.
I can’t even offer to help, I couldn’t even afford it myself. I understand your choice, completely.
Honestly, with your situation you’re more entitled to your position than most. Keep fighting, please.
No, what I want is for you, everyone, to be happy and content. I really am bitter, but it’s for others as my personal situation is fine.
I’m sorry to hear that, genuinely. I hope that despite any odds you’re facing you make your mark the way you wanted. I’ve had family with cancer before.
Exactly!!! We need houses, apartments, and everything inbetween so that a diverse set of needs are met. We should change zoning where it makes sense and reduce demand on traditional houses especially in very dense urban areas (where they don’t make much sense for many people)
the doomerism is literally driving me mad, it’s like every bit of bad news is another line on a sacred Prophetic Scroll of Doom to them
yeah like sorry no we don’t deserve any of this shit and you don’t either so stop rolling over
The distribution of those who are homeless and the distribution of empty houses is not the same, and it’s not just those with no home who are looking for one - the market for homes is not just literally homeless people.
If I’m honest, this really comes across as you attacking housing projects because you think overpopulation is worse, and having more housing enables a higher population. “No housing? Less incentive for children.” in effect.
I don’t like the implications of that kind of thinking.
So your argument is that because of overpopulation we should not resolve housing shortages? The shortage of high density housing in urban areas literally makes the ecological problems worse. Longer commutes means more pollution, for example.
The true question is horny for whom
I could buy some argument that the computer is creating genuine art, but the human did so little in that process idk how these people feel somehow justified in taking credit for it. Even if I was the one who gave Da Vinci his canvas, paint, and told him to paint a woman, I didn’t paint the Mona Lisa
Houses do not make humans, humans do. The houses are for addressing the _current problem_. If we have an expanding population, we are obligated to provide housing for them, not building the houses does nothing and is frankly just cruel.
That comment was not directed at you.
- Cities are like less than 5% of land area, it’s agriculture that takes up the space (more houses do not need more food)
- Never said anything about your stance on race or religion
- We must coexist and be the caretakers of the Earth, as nothing else can do that but someone must
idk its just a weird position to hold so strongly is all ig, anyways, goodnight
Take an AI message for what you will, (aka it can be frustratingly dumb at times) I’m just being demonstrative.
Out of curiosity to see if I was being completely unreasonable in how I figured that would be interpreted, I gave the quote to gpt-4o to see how it would expand the hyperbole. It basically nailed it.
I’m a little confrontational as I felt you made comments that felt rather insensitive, to the point another person blocked you. I have no way of rigorously defining the meaning of “reasonable” over the 300 character messages, frankly.
I’m not going to stop arguing for houses because:
- idiots want to deport legitimate residents for their skin color
- politicians are (intentionally) bad at economics
- we somehow can’t do forestry despite doing it for thousands of years
This take is so black and white. All of that is bad too.
I’m respecting your intelligence and the character length limit, I’m presuming you don’t take the most extreme take of my argument. Why would you? I feel like in context you should take the “million other things” to be a hyperbolic statement encompassing reasons similar to the previous examples.
My argument is precisely what I said. It’s not like a math problem where you reduce it to a simpler equation. Why would that be precisely my argument?
“Aw shucks, we can’t move, I love my local pizza place too much. Everything sucks and fuck the NIMBYs” is obviously an insane argument
I’m personally okay with trying to speculate on what developers are doing, but yeah it’s fucking weird when they start following _people_ around and reading into their actions like everything they do has to do with the The Next Game.
Maybe Gabe just wants a vacation, lol
I’m not sure what you’re missing. It’s unreasonable to demand people give up their often location based careers and family connections to move far away to places which have what amounts to cheaper buildings. This can either be because it’s costly, a lack of job guarantees, or a million other things.
I mean, why? Is that city somehow the inevitable result of “please build more houses for a diverse set of needs in a reasonable way” succeeding? Why can’t we just do better?
Do you mean housing as in just having a roof over your head? These people have a place to live but do not have an _adequate_ place to live.
- a tiny apartment with no ability for family or space for their hobbies
- somewhere very far from their work, costing them time and gas
- many others…
Oh, and actual houses are just one aspect - we need more affordable apartments as well, to serve different needs. I don’t think a kicked out teen should sign a mortgage, but they can’t afford thousands for an apartment either.
As an anecdote, my father who does own a home is even running into these issues. He is getting older and needs to move nearby to family but basically can’t, since his home is not worth much in the area and where all live it’s very expensive long term (I’m including the math of just renting too).
I feel like you’re intentionally ignoring reasonable cases, then. Additionally, many people are just temporarily homeless and then are forced to let another person sacrifice in order to have a place to live since they can’t afford even small apartments, e.g. teens kicked out by abusive parents.
Don’t project that onto my argument, lol. With every group of victims there will be ridiculous grifters who claim to be apart of that group to garner sympathy. I’m taking about people who are actually struggling or at least feel trapped in their situations due to housing.
We have to compromise somewhere and we should do so as cleanly as possible - we shouldn’t be exactly rushing to build cheap inefficient buildings either. We are sacrificing the ecosystem but we can take care in how we do it and give back in places where we do not live so densely in cities.
You are knowingly twisting my words and trying to force me into some kind of corner rather than addressing the spirit of my argument, not to mention how rude you were to others. You added “expensive neighborhood” like the people I was talking about are just salty upper middle class assholes? What?
I also find this hard to accept because I’m very confident we have every resource we need to just build cheaper housing. To be slightly reductive, they’re just buildings! We should change culture itself over something as mundane as housing?
