this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
916 points (89.1% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

27197 readers
3529 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ComradeSpood@lemmyunchained.net 63 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Even the father of capitalism thought landlords were parasites that only leeched off the economy

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Adam Smith justifies the existence of rent as improvement in the value of land.

https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-xi-of-the-rent-of-land

Perhaps you're misunderstanding the term 'rent-seeking' which is a different concept entitely

[–] MyNameIsIgglePiggle@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I read through until chapter 1 in that section you linked and he is pretty scathing of landlords and if I understand it correctly his argument is that landlords exist solely to soak up all extra profits above what would leave the tenant just enough to survive.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'd strongly recommend you consider reading the entire thing, because that is not his take at all.

Consider at his time, "landlord" literally meant a lord who owned land, and much of the rent he discussed (often negatively) is shit like, charging people to harvest kelp near your house.

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don’t understand why you’re getting downvoted. You’re right.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Probably because he's not actually presenting an argument, and is instead expecting people to read a 57 310 word essay. Oh, and if you read all of that and still disagree? "You must have misunderstood, read it again."

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol heaven forbid that someone should want you to have an understanding of what you’re talking about.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you can't simplify it enough to summarize in less than 57 000 words, then you don't understand it.

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, some topics take a lot of nuance time to explain properly. Unless you think the concept of “books” is stupid for some reason, which I’m starting to suspect that you do.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If someone is trying to convince you that vaccines are bad and their only argument is "read this book and you'll see what I'm talking about" are you going to read the book? No.

Other anti-vaxxers replying with "I don't know why you're getting downvoted, that's what the book says!" Does not contribute to the argument.

You want to convince people something is true you need to present them with an argument, not a book report. If they already think you're an idiot they're not going to read your idiot book. When they present counter arguments that is your opportunity to present any nuance you have.

To put another way: it's not my job to make your argument for you by studying a topic I don't agree with.

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The argument was that Adam Smith hated landlords, which is incorrect, and he was citing his source you fucking sausage hahaha

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nobody is asking you to study the topic, but when the topic is “did Adam Smith like landlords” and you say “no” and then refuse to read what he actually said about it or listen to people who actually have read it then you look like an idiot. Like sorry bud, that’s how it is.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nobody is asking you to study the topic

The person insisting I read 57 310 words, while providing no quotes, context, or arguments of their own is.

or listen to people who actually have read it

You mean like this post here:

I read through until chapter 1 in that section you linked and he is pretty scathing of landlords and if I understand it correctly his argument is that landlords exist solely to soak up all extra profits above what would leave the tenant just enough to survive.

To which the response was simply "Read more"? No counter arguments. Just "If you don't agree with me yet you haven't studied the topic enough. Study it more until you agree with me."

Ya, I wonder why they got downvotes...

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s perfectly reasonable to ask someone to study a topic before they comment on it. This is some next level brain rot you have son.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A 50 000+ word essay is as useful a source as saying "Google it". You need to at least quote something to direct people where to look.

s perfectly reasonable to ask someone to study a topic before they comment on it.

dO yOuR ReAsEaRch!!!! Has never been effective at convincing people to change their opinion.

[–] trekman10@union.place 1 points 1 year ago

@CileTheSane @Cruxifux I aspire to this, but I also often fail to think ahead to save sources for future use, and so I'm stuck pulling from memory and trying to regurgitate the arguments or information

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s one of the most prolific, if not THE most prolific book about the philosophy of capitalism of all time. It’s not the same as some anti vaxxer telling you to do your own research man.

I just get really fucking annoyed when people are like “Adam Smith hated landlords even!” When it’s not true. It makes it seem like capitalism isn’t inherently bad or oppressive, it’s the fault of our current system and the bourgeoisie we have now, and not the actual point of the beast. It lets capitalism and it’s proponents off easy, and that pisses me off. And it pisses me off more that when you explain it and give people the resources to understand it better they’re actively rude to you.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And it pisses me off more that when you explain it and give people the resources to understand it better they’re actively rude to you.

I can how it can piss you off when you try to explain something to someone and they respond with something like:

This is some next level brain rot you have son.

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Hah fair enough

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There was no summary. Best was

Adam Smith justifies the existence of rent as improvement in the value of land.

"Some guy said rent is good" does not summarize why rent is good. At best it's an appeal to authority.

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He’s not “some guy”, he’s Adam Smith, one of the main political philosophers responsible for what we know now as capitalism. And it’s a common misconception by people that don’t actually read books that he thinks that landlords, as we have them currently, were bad. Which isn’t true. He summarized it for you and then also added the whole “harvesting kelp” part as well, and then suggested if you want to understand more the nuances of how he feels about landlords you can read more about it. And for some reason you’re like “fuck you” hahaha

Like dude, I don’t get what your issue here is. It sounds like you’re just being bitchy for bitches sake.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Like dude, I don’t get what your issue here is. It sounds like you’re just being bitchy for bitches sake.

The projection is strong in this one.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Being right is its own reward.

[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I guess, but the mass incorrectness still annoys me lol

[–] MyNameIsIgglePiggle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fair. I was thinking today he seemed more to be referring to crops

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Fun fact: all unions are inherently rent-seeking.

I say this as a supporter of unions - true is true. Rent seeking is inherently bad but the sum of the union equation is that they do more good than bad.

The police union, of course, is also uniquely bad in other ways.