"Eat The Landlords" - housing reform partisans target Brooklyn Housing Court overnight

[SevenEleven]

The free market does not automatically provide the best outcome, particularly if there are market failures associated with providing a particular good or service in a certain market.

Yeah, but it can--and when it can, it should.

It isn't like poor people across the developed world are unable to find housing. This is a situation limited to a number of overregulated, highly desirable cities mostly in the Anglosphere. There are so many examples of housing markets in Japan, the non-coastal United States, and much of continental Europe with limited public housing but plenty of affordable housing. We can copy their best practices. It isn't that complicated.

I agree that we need serious zoning reform in this state but I think you're overestimating the impact this would have overall. At least with regards to SF, LA, and NYC metros, there are significant geographic limitations involved. The potential for major earthquakes in California significantly limits the ability to build upward, and in order to do this you would have to find a way to significantly change the way we are able to use eminent domain. Sure, you could bulldoze my whole block and build a ten-story complex there but you probably aren't getting much more than that.

It's a complex problem that requires complex solutions.

Most of the land area in LA, the Bay Area, and Greater NYC is mostly single family homes. If you made it possible to convert ~10 percent of them to 20 unit apartment buildings you'd basically double the regional housing stock. NYC is literally the biggest metro area by footprint in the world, yet somehow plenty of other cities fit in far, far more people. I think this is a defeatist line of thinking that doesn't acknowledge just how underbuilt American cities are.

Oh, believe me, I understand completely. The thing is, and I'm sure you realize this, the perfect solution isn't always the possible solution. The political forces at play are very difficult to over come. The status quo is nearly always maintained. Public housing and rent control always fail. Property tax reform and zoning changes always fail. Public transportation has been an astronomical difficulty. And then, you bring eminent domain into the picture even more...that's going to fail, too, right? We still have no Purple Line (D Line, whatever).

One of the reasons I support public transportation and transit expansion so fervently is that it hits a nice trifecta of lowering housing costs, making daily life convenient for more people (alleviating traffic some even for those who drive instead), and provides incremental benefits for our carbon emissions. Looking at the Prop 1A map is one of the more interesting recent maps, and it makes sense. Prop 1A passed, even, which shows that there is ample to room to sell mass transit to the public. Unfortunately, the pandemic is probably a hefty setback for both HSR and the Purple Line for now.

Our structure of local government is very difficult to overcome. There are so many layers and competing interests that small tasks become insurmountable, almost. It's not defeatist to recognize that the best solution is going to have to rely on smaller steps. I suppose my point here is that I agree with the premise but I'm interested in knowing how we get to there from here.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

The free market does not automatically provide the best outcome, particularly if there are market failures associated with providing a particular good or service in a certain market.

Yeah, but it can--and when it can, it should.

It isn't like poor people across the developed world are unable to find housing. This is a situation limited to a number of overregulated, highly desirable cities mostly in the Anglosphere. There are so many examples of housing markets in Japan, the non-coastal United States, and much of continental Europe with limited public housing but plenty of affordable housing. We can copy their best practices. It isn't that complicated.

I agree that we need serious zoning reform in this state but I think you're overestimating the impact this would have overall. At least with regards to SF, LA, and NYC metros, there are significant geographic limitations involved. The potential for major earthquakes in California significantly limits the ability to build upward, and in order to do this you would have to find a way to significantly change the way we are able to use eminent domain. Sure, you could bulldoze my whole block and build a ten-story complex there but you probably aren't getting much more than that.

It's a complex problem that requires complex solutions.

Most of the land area in LA, the Bay Area, and Greater NYC is mostly single family homes. If you made it possible to convert ~10 percent of them to 20 unit apartment buildings you'd basically double the regional housing stock. NYC is literally the biggest metro area by footprint in the world, yet somehow plenty of other cities fit in far, far more people. I think this is a defeatist line of thinking that doesn't acknowledge just how underbuilt American cities are.

Oh, believe me, I understand completely. The thing is, and I'm sure you realize this, the perfect solution isn't always the possible solution. The political forces at play are very difficult to over come. The status quo is nearly always maintained. Public housing and rent control always fail. Property tax reform and zoning changes always fail. Public transportation has been an astronomical difficulty. And then, you bring eminent domain into the picture even more...that's going to fail, too, right? We still have no Purple Line (D Line, whatever).

One of the reasons I support public transportation and transit expansion so fervently is that it hits a nice trifecta of lowering housing costs, making daily life convenient for more people (alleviating traffic some even for those who drive instead), and provides incremental benefits for our carbon emissions. Looking at the Prop 1A map is one of the more interesting recent maps, and it makes sense. Prop 1A passed, even, which shows that there is ample to room to sell mass transit to the public. Unfortunately, the pandemic is probably a hefty setback for both HSR and the Purple Line for now.

Our structure of local government is very difficult to overcome. There are so many layers and competing interests that small tasks become insurmountable, almost. It's not defeatist to recognize that the best solution is going to have to rely on smaller steps. I suppose my point here is that I agree with the premise but I'm interested in knowing how we get to there from here.

Oh believe me, I understand completely.

The defeatist line is mostly because I've heard the "we're out of space line" so many times and it is so fundamentally wrong.

Ultimately, I don't see the paradigm changing until federal and state action curtails local control. Momentum does seem to be building in that direction, but I hope it doesn't take too long. Otherwise, we're screwed. We may continue to build new housing and new transit, but it won't be at the scale we need until Washington or Sacramento steps in. Until then, just keep pushing the right ballot measures and combat those who block what limited housing projects that do get proposed.

One last thing, HSR and the Purple Line actually are right where they need to be and most of their funding was already locked in, so that's nice.

[SevenEleven]

The free market does not automatically provide the best outcome, particularly if there are market failures associated with providing a particular good or service in a certain market.

Yeah, but it can--and when it can, it should.

It isn't like poor people across the developed world are unable to find housing. This is a situation limited to a number of overregulated, highly desirable cities mostly in the Anglosphere. There are so many examples of housing markets in Japan, the non-coastal United States, and much of continental Europe with limited public housing but plenty of affordable housing. We can copy their best practices. It isn't that complicated.

I agree that we need serious zoning reform in this state but I think you're overestimating the impact this would have overall. At least with regards to SF, LA, and NYC metros, there are significant geographic limitations involved. The potential for major earthquakes in California significantly limits the ability to build upward, and in order to do this you would have to find a way to significantly change the way we are able to use eminent domain. Sure, you could bulldoze my whole block and build a ten-story complex there but you probably aren't getting much more than that.

It's a complex problem that requires complex solutions.

Most of the land area in LA, the Bay Area, and Greater NYC is mostly single family homes. If you made it possible to convert ~10 percent of them to 20 unit apartment buildings you'd basically double the regional housing stock. NYC is literally the biggest metro area by footprint in the world, yet somehow plenty of other cities fit in far, far more people. I think this is a defeatist line of thinking that doesn't acknowledge just how underbuilt American cities are.

Oh, believe me, I understand completely. The thing is, and I'm sure you realize this, the perfect solution isn't always the possible solution. The political forces at play are very difficult to over come. The status quo is nearly always maintained. Public housing and rent control always fail. Property tax reform and zoning changes always fail. Public transportation has been an astronomical difficulty. And then, you bring eminent domain into the picture even more...that's going to fail, too, right? We still have no Purple Line (D Line, whatever).

One of the reasons I support public transportation and transit expansion so fervently is that it hits a nice trifecta of lowering housing costs, making daily life convenient for more people (alleviating traffic some even for those who drive instead), and provides incremental benefits for our carbon emissions. Looking at the Prop 1A map is one of the more interesting recent maps, and it makes sense. Prop 1A passed, even, which shows that there is ample to room to sell mass transit to the public. Unfortunately, the pandemic is probably a hefty setback for both HSR and the Purple Line for now.

Our structure of local government is very difficult to overcome. There are so many layers and competing interests that small tasks become insurmountable, almost. It's not defeatist to recognize that the best solution is going to have to rely on smaller steps. I suppose my point here is that I agree with the premise but I'm interested in knowing how we get to there from here.

Oh believe me, I understand completely.

The defeatist line is mostly because I've heard the "we're out of space line" so many times and it is so fundamentally wrong.

Ultimately, I don't see the paradigm changing until federal and state action curtails local control. Momentum does seem to be building in that direction, but I hope it doesn't take too long. Otherwise, we're screwed. We may continue to build new housing and new transit, but it won't be at the scale we need until Washington or Sacramento steps in. Until then, just keep pushing the right ballot measures and combat those who block what limited housing projects that do get proposed.

One last thing, HSR and the Purple Line actually are right where they need to be and most of their funding was already locked in, so that's nice.

Yeah, I've long felt that there should be more federal policy guiding our major cities, but the existence of Republicans makes doing so a suicide mission.

And rather ironically, I disagree with you that the Purple Line and HSR are right where they need to be. They should be nearly done by now. Alas, nothing happens as quickly as it should. The only change in America is incremental.

[John Dule]

dule, have you ever been a tenant? just wondering

Imagine arguing for a return to tenements in the middle of a pandemic.

Fair enough. I expect that you'll advocate for eliminating public transportation like trains, subways, and buses in that case. You know, in order to avoid looking like a hypocrite.

 https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/tenements

 Read bro.

Uh-oh! A leftist is losing an argument online. Better break out Ol' Reliable!

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

And rather ironically, I disagree with you that the Purple Line and HSR are right where they need to be. They should be nearly done by now.

Well yeah. But they're matching their pre-pandemic schedule.

[John Dule]

I don't believe I said anything like that. Really, all I wanted to do here was demonstrate that you're not the victim here and you don't have the moral high ground. If you think letting a home sit vacant for years is "an act of human ingenuity", frankly, you're not the brightest bulb to fall out of the socket. I'm actually shocked you had the nerve to declare someone else's attitude "feudalistic". I'm not sure I've ever seen you so frazzled.

Who has the moral high ground then? Actually, never mind. I don't care about leftist hot takes on morality. My point was that you were demeaning the instinct to invest, which-- far from being a negative trait-- is what has made the world what it is today. Letting a house sit vacant has nothing to do with that; it's just a sad byproduct of left-wing policies and the havoc they wreak upon ordinary people's lives.

I did no such thing. I encourage people to make sound investments. Your actual words were that NO ONE has been hurt more than landlords during this pandemic. Excuse me if I have much greater concern for the lives and businesses that have been lost than whether or not some guy gets a large enough check from whoever occupies his fifth home.

Do not try to change the subject. You said that landlords "invest in order to restrict access to people's needs," and I responded to that claim because it is patently silly. You also criticized the practice of "using your wealth to purchase something you don't need in hopes of extracting more wealth from people who do have that need." This covers just about every category of investment. Investment is not about buying something you need. It's about buying something that you know other people need, and getting in on that market. I'm just asking for a little consistency-- if charging rent is bad, then so is owning any property outside of what you truly need to survive.

Or, you know, you could be up front about what you're doing.

Please tell me what I'm doing, Sev. I'd love to know how you'd describe it.

You can open up any history book if you'd like to learn about what happens to the "not generally wealthy" (lol) when social stability rapidly declines.

Lol, and you have the gall to act surprised when I compare your mentality to that of a Maoist landlord purge? You're literally inviting that direct comparison with these ineptly worded, poorly veiled threats.

[SevenEleven]

I don't believe I said anything like that. Really, all I wanted to do here was demonstrate that you're not the victim here and you don't have the moral high ground. If you think letting a home sit vacant for years is "an act of human ingenuity", frankly, you're not the brightest bulb to fall out of the socket. I'm actually shocked you had the nerve to declare someone else's attitude "feudalistic". I'm not sure I've ever seen you so frazzled.

Who has the moral high ground then? Actually, never mind. I don't care about leftist hot takes on morality. My point was that you were demeaning the instinct to invest, which-- far from being a negative trait-- is what has made the world what it is today. Letting a house sit vacant has nothing to do with that; it's just a sad byproduct of left-wing policies and the havoc they wreak upon ordinary people's lives.

I did no such thing. I encourage people to make sound investments. Your actual words were that NO ONE has been hurt more than landlords during this pandemic. Excuse me if I have much greater concern for the lives and businesses that have been lost than whether or not some guy gets a large enough check from whoever occupies his fifth home.

Do not try to change the subject. You said that landlords "invest in order to restrict access to people's needs," and I responded to that claim because it is patently silly. You also criticized the practice of "using your wealth to purchase something you don't need in hopes of extracting more wealth from people who do have that need." This covers just about every category of investment. It's not about buying something you need. It's about buying something that you know other people need, and getting in on that market. I'm just asking for a little consistency-- if charging rent is bad, then so is owning any property outside of what you truly need to survive.

I never said charging rent is "bad", in fact, I specifically mentioned that I'm renting out a home myself. What I took issue with was your insistence that doing so isn't "unearned capital" and tried to see if you could present a solid argument as to why.

Or, you know, you could be up front about what you're doing.

Please tell me what I'm doing, Sev. I'd love to know how you'd describe it.

What I think you're doing is manipulating circumstance to portray yourself as a victim, a problem endemic to right-wing thinking. I will elaborate.

You can open up any history book if you'd like to learn about what happens to the "not generally wealthy" (lol) when social stability rapidly declines.

Lol, and you have the gall to act surprised when I compare your mentality to that of a Maoist landlord purge? You're literally inviting that direct comparison with these ineptly worded, poorly veiled threats.

Dule, I engaged with you because you're usually a fan of healthy debate. Dude, what is you doing? You're accusing me of being a Maoist and making threats? Me, the person renting out his home, his one home? That I'm threatening you is quite a malicious assertion. For those of us who can think long-term, having social instability, rampant homelessness, and associated crime is not something that will benefit our property values.

The fact that you say renters are "stealing" homes is insane. The rental market is driven by, guess who, renters. You know what else is bad for the rental market? A sudden collapse that displaces hundreds of thousands of struggling people. This is a pandemic with a poor economy. Playing musical chairs with the rental market isn't benefiting anyone, and having homeless hordes roaming the streets in a time where tensions are already high is a recipe for disaster. Did the renter move in to your house and start sleeping on the couch? No? Then the renter isn't stealing housing. I think there should be property tax relief for landlords who are losing income due to pandemic-related eviction freezes, but the things you're asserting about people who are less well off, and, well, me, someone who also rents out a home, are repugnant.

As it is, your entire argument has been disingenuous. You've let a house sit vacant for five years. Regardless of the impact of the pandemic, it's not "oh, poor you, horrible time to be a landlord". Guess what? It's a horrible time to be a renter. It's a horrible time to own a restaurant, and have to pay rent on top of that, whether you're open or not. A vacant house for five years isn't anyone else's problem. You could've locked in a tenant at good rates, you're worse off now due to poor decisions. You can throw non-sequitirs like "sixteen poor people moving in" all you want, but I don't think you understand the fundamentals, because if you did, you would see how problematic mass evictions are for people renting out. In a depression, to top it off.

200k+ people are dead, businesses are closing around the country, people are without jobs and without child care when they're at their jobs, and you think whether someone's fifth house is adequately paid for by someone else is the biggest tragedy...don't you dare call me the bad guy here.

[John Dule]

I don't believe I said anything like that. Really, all I wanted to do here was demonstrate that you're not the victim here and you don't have the moral high ground. If you think letting a home sit vacant for years is "an act of human ingenuity", frankly, you're not the brightest bulb to fall out of the socket. I'm actually shocked you had the nerve to declare someone else's attitude "feudalistic". I'm not sure I've ever seen you so frazzled.

Who has the moral high ground then? Actually, never mind. I don't care about leftist hot takes on morality. My point was that you were demeaning the instinct to invest, which-- far from being a negative trait-- is what has made the world what it is today. Letting a house sit vacant has nothing to do with that; it's just a sad byproduct of left-wing policies and the havoc they wreak upon ordinary people's lives.

I did no such thing. I encourage people to make sound investments. Your actual words were that NO ONE has been hurt more than landlords during this pandemic. Excuse me if I have much greater concern for the lives and businesses that have been lost than whether or not some guy gets a large enough check from whoever occupies his fifth home.

Do not try to change the subject. You said that landlords "invest in order to restrict access to people's needs," and I responded to that claim because it is patently silly. You also criticized the practice of "using your wealth to purchase something you don't need in hopes of extracting more wealth from people who do have that need." This covers just about every category of investment. It's not about buying something you need. It's about buying something that you know other people need, and getting in on that market. I'm just asking for a little consistency-- if charging rent is bad, then so is owning any property outside of what you truly need to survive.

I never said charging rent is "bad", in fact, I specifically mentioned that I'm renting out a home myself. What I took issue with was your insistence that doing so isn't "unearned capital" and tried to see if you could present a solid argument as to why.

And I'm pointing out that your definition of "unearned capital" logically covers everything from owning patents to owning stock in a company. All of this is predicated upon a wholly subjective definition of "earned" that you are bringing to this discussion-- one that I do not accept.

Dule, I engaged with you because you're usually a fan of healthy debate. Dude, what is you doing? You're accusing me of being a Maoist and making threats? Me, the person renting out his home, his one home? That I'm threatening you is quite a malicious assertion. For those of us who can think long-term, having social instability, rampant homelessness, and associated crime is not something that will benefit our property values.

Your references to how I'm "outnumbered" and to "opening up a history book" certainly sound like you're predicting a not-far-off violent revolt unless the housing crisis is fixed. Sounds like a coercive situation to me. Correct me if I'm wrong: You're saying that we should capitulate to a variety of left-wing policies, because unless we do, we'll get one-way tickets to the gulag someday. Am I misunderstanding the premise of your argument?

Whatever-- whether you intended it that way is immaterial. The point is that a hypothetical future Chapo revolution isn't a sufficient reason for why we should adopt left-wing economic proposals to solve the housing crisis-- especially when the free-market proposals outlined in this thread would actually work better.

The fact that you say renters are "stealing" homes is insane. The rental market is driven by, guess who, renters. You know what else is bad for the rental market? A sudden collapse that displaces hundreds of thousands of struggling people. This is a pandemic with a poor economy. Playing musical chairs with the rental market isn't benefiting anyone, and having homeless hordes roaming the streets in a time where tensions are already high is a recipe for disaster. Did the renter move in to your house and start sleeping on the couch? No? Then the renter isn't stealing housing. I think there should be property tax relief for landlords who are losing income due to pandemic-related eviction freezes, but the things you're asserting about people who are less well off, and, well, me, someone who also rents out a home, are repugnant.

I said that squatters were stealing homes, not renters-- which is objectively true.

As it is, your entire argument has been disingenuous. You've let a house sit vacant for five years. Regardless of the impact of the pandemic, it's not "oh, poor you, horrible time to be a landlord". Guess what? It's a horrible time to be a renter. It's a horrible time to own a restaurant, and have to pay rent on top of that, whether you're open or not. A vacant house for five years isn't anyone else's problem. You could've locked in a tenant at good rates, you're worse off now due to poor decisions. You can throw non-sequitirs like "sixteen poor people moving in" all you want, but I don't think you understand the fundamentals, because if you did, you would see how problematic mass evictions are for people renting out. In a depression, to top it off.

Letting that house sit there was not a mistake. In San Francisco, it is genuinely less risky to let a unit sit idle than to put it out on the rental market, watch it get pulled into some bogus section 8 policy, and then see it turned into a meth flophouse.

[SevenEleven]

I notice that one part of my post didn't get quoted...🤔

[John Dule]

I notice that one part of my post didn't get quoted...🤔

When I write these responses, I try to focus on the meat and potatoes of the argument rather than going after easy prey like pearl-clutching and ad-hominems.

[SevenEleven]

I notice that one part of my post didn't get quoted...

When I write these responses, I try to focus on the meat and potatoes of the argument rather than going after easy prey like pearl-clutching and ad-hominems.

You accused me of being a Maoist who is threatening you. I don't believe you can honestly suggest I'm the one resorting to pearl-clutching and ad-hominems. Blairite advocated for bulldozing my home and letting the chips fall where they may and somehow him and I were able to have a reasonable dialogue. And here you are, whining about a home you didn't purchase and don't own, that no one even lives in.

[GP270watch]

dule, have you ever been a tenant? just wondering

Imagine arguing for a return to tenements in the middle of a pandemic.

Fair enough. I expect that you'll advocate for eliminating public transportation like trains, subways, and buses in that case. You know, in order to avoid looking like a hypocrite.

 https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/tenements

 Read bro.

Uh-oh! A leftist is losing an argument online. Better break out Ol' Reliable!

 Says the poster who sh*tposts memes when he doesn't have a logical argument.

[SevenEleven]

Then why stop evicting people who are (quite literally) stealing other people's houses from them?

Nothing to do with squatters, buddy. What you said is that mass evictions should happen if external circumstances lead to renters not having adequate funds. These aren't squatters, these are people who have been paying for a place to live. You don't have to obfuscate literally everything. Just own up to being a selfish person who doesn't understand how the housing market works because you've never had to. Yes, I'm calling you selfish and also arguing that said selfishness doesn't benefit you. That's a problem you'll have to deal with on your own.

[John Dule]

I notice that one part of my post didn't get quoted...

When I write these responses, I try to focus on the meat and potatoes of the argument rather than going after easy prey like pearl-clutching and ad-hominems.

You accused me of being a Maoist who is threatening you.

No, I said that you were inviting that comparison with the wording you chose in your comment.

[SevenEleven]

I notice that one part of my post didn't get quoted...

When I write these responses, I try to focus on the meat and potatoes of the argument rather than going after easy prey like pearl-clutching and ad-hominems.

You accused me of being a Maoist who is threatening you.

No, I said that you were inviting that comparison with the wording you chose in your comment.

You realize that everyone else can see that you only respond with one-liners to selected quotes you deem convenient, right?

For someone who talks about the virtues of logic and debate so often, you're making a piss-poor example of it in this thread.

[John Dule]

Then why stop evicting people who are (quite literally) stealing other people's houses from them?

Nothing to do with squatters, buddy. What you said is that mass evictions should happen if external circumstances lead to renters not having adequate funds. These aren't squatters, these are people who have been paying for a place to live. You don't have to obfuscate literally everything. Just own up to being a selfish person who doesn't understand how the housing market works because you've never had to. Yes, I'm calling you selfish and also arguing that said selfishness doesn't benefit you. That's a problem you'll have to deal with on your own.

I was very clearly referring to people who do not pay their rent (aka squatters) with that comment. If the best you can do to keep this argument going is blatantly quoting me out of context, then I think we're done here.

[SevenEleven]

Then why stop evicting people who are (quite literally) stealing other people's houses from them?

Nothing to do with squatters, buddy. What you said is that mass evictions should happen if external circumstances lead to renters not having adequate funds. These aren't squatters, these are people who have been paying for a place to live. You don't have to obfuscate literally everything. Just own up to being a selfish person who doesn't understand how the housing market works because you've never had to. Yes, I'm calling you selfish and also arguing that said selfishness doesn't benefit you. That's a problem you'll have to deal with on your own.

I was very clearly referring to people who do not pay their rent (aka squatters) with that comment. If the best you can do to keep this argument going is blatantly quoting me out of context, then I think we're done here.

Squatters don't have contracts and don't pay rent. Yes, for all the morons out there, what I'm saying about squatters is true. Look it up.

[John Dule]

Says the poster who sh*tposts memes when he doesn't have a logical argument.

If you'd like to have a logical argument, please construct your own comment and enter into a discussion with me rather than jumping in to post a random link and rudely telling me to "read it." That's not an argument.

[John Dule]

Then why stop evicting people who are (quite literally) stealing other people's houses from them?

Nothing to do with squatters, buddy. What you said is that mass evictions should happen if external circumstances lead to renters not having adequate funds. These aren't squatters, these are people who have been paying for a place to live. You don't have to obfuscate literally everything. Just own up to being a selfish person who doesn't understand how the housing market works because you've never had to. Yes, I'm calling you selfish and also arguing that said selfishness doesn't benefit you. That's a problem you'll have to deal with on your own.

I was very clearly referring to people who do not pay their rent (aka squatters) with that comment. If the best you can do to keep this argument going is blatantly quoting me out of context, then I think we're done here.

Squatters don't have contracts and don't pay rent. Yes, for all the morons out there, what I'm saying about squatters is true. Look it up.

Ok Sev. What do you call a person who enters into a rental agreement, reneges on that agreement, refuses to pay rent, and takes advantage of the long eviction period in the state of California to get free housing for an extended period of time? I would personally call that person a squatter. However, if you have some other term you'd like to apply, I'd be happy to use that instead. Regardless, this is clearly the situation to which I was referring, so can you move on to another aspect of my arguments if you'd like to continue this?

[John Dule]

You realize that everyone else can see that you only respond with one-liners to selected quotes you deem convenient, right?

You wrote a paragraph that was based on a misinterpretation of what I was saying. I wrote a sentence in response that clarified that misinterpretation. I didn't feel any need to respond to the rest of your post, because again, it was all predicated on a misrepresentation of my argument. So if you are upset about the ratio of the length of your comments to my comments, please understand that I'm not being flippant. I just didn't need all that many words to clarify what I meant.

[GP270watch]

Says the poster who sh*tposts memes when he doesn't have a logical argument.

If you'd like to have a logical argument, please construct your own comment and enter into a discussion with me rather than jumping in to post a random link and rudely telling me to "read it." That's not an argument.

 I wasn't actually having a debate with you. You're too ignorant to have a logical debate with. I was making fun of your lack of self awareness to be advocating for tenements in a pandemic. I thought that was pretty cut and dry.

 I also noticed you love to post big graphical responses of pre-canned debate jargon because you're not actually interested in a robust and intellectual discussion and instead want to ram your stupid libertarian orthodoxy while ignoring everything else.

[John Dule]

I was making fun of your lack of self awareness to be advocating for tenements in a pandemic.

Yeah, I get it. And I assumed that you meant this because tenements are havens for spreading disease. So I listed a number of other places that are known to spread disease, my point being that if you have a problem with the type of housing I described due to the disease factor, you should also logically have a problem with those things. You ignored that. This exchange didn't make me feel like I needed to take you seriously in this discussion, so I chose to respond to your """argument""" with one of my original, bespoke, hilarious memes. I make no apologies.

[GP270watch]

I was making fun of your lack of self awareness to be advocating for tenements in a pandemic.

Yeah, I get it. And I assumed that you meant this because tenements are havens for spreading disease. So I listed a number of other places that are known to spread disease, my point being that if you have a problem with the type of housing I described due to the disease factor, you should also logically have a problem with those things. You ignored that. This exchange didn't make me feel like I needed to take you seriously in this discussion, so I chose to respond to your """argument""" with one of my original, bespoke, hilarious memes. I make no apologies.

 Read bro

New Study Finds No Direct Link Between Subway & COVID-19 Spread

Before you assume something, try and do research to see if you actually have a point.

[John Dule]

I was making fun of your lack of self awareness to be advocating for tenements in a pandemic.

Yeah, I get it. And I assumed that you meant this because tenements are havens for spreading disease. So I listed a number of other places that are known to spread disease, my point being that if you have a problem with the type of housing I described due to the disease factor, you should also logically have a problem with those things. You ignored that. This exchange didn't make me feel like I needed to take you seriously in this discussion, so I chose to respond to your """argument""" with one of my original, bespoke, hilarious memes. I make no apologies.

 Read bro

New Study Finds No Direct Link Between Subway & COVID-19 Spread

Before you assume something, try and do research to see if you actually have a point.

So to be clear, you're comparing tenement housing in 1903 to modern public transit, and you're arguing that because disease spread more easily in 1903, that proves that modern housing of that type will also be dangerous? Personally I'm confident that with modern construction methods we can build something a little more sanitary than what we were capable of at the turn of the century.

Regardless, the CDC has outlined a number of health hazards that are endemic to public transit, and the risk depends largely upon the length of the trip and what you touch.

[SevenEleven]

This is simply embarrassing at this point, wow.