partial_accumen

I’ve given you my opinion. I don’t have to back anything up.

Don’t sell yourself short. You’ve got apathy, malice or ignorance.

I don’t think things are getting worse. You do.

So you refuse to defend your spoken position with anything concrete, even though I’ve asked you about multiple specific examples that contradict your position.

And I don’t think any of this should add to the “hate” problem that some see on Lemmy. Which is the point of OP’s post.

Well why would you? You seem to be just fine with the destruction of lives around you, even making supporting statements that you think its good these things are happening to these people. Why do you think that your positions don’t deserve hateful responses? Lemmy doesn’t have a “hate” problem. Today’s leadership in the USA, and as a consequence, our society now does.

Hate isn’t the answer

I agree with that statement. However, your chosen positions are steeped in hate yet you defer or ignore it. That wreaks of hypocrisy on your part, and points back to the intellectual dishonesty I accused you of earlier.

You’re being intellectually dishonest if you are claiming your statement is true.

Just because I said something that you didn’t agree with doesn’t mean I was being “intellectually dishonest,” and it’s rude of you to imply that.

You can keep your false righteous indignation. How can you claim to tell person in an El Salvador prison right now its “no worse off”? Please, explain that to me. How about a fired federal worker? Is it “no worse off” for them now they’re unemployed?

I lived through the 80’s. Try living then and telling me that life is worse now. lol

I already told you I’m an older, well off, white man. Yes, I lived through the 80s too. How is that relevant at all? You’re we should be happy now because we don’t have 12% interest rates yet and stagflation is how we should be okay with trump destroying the world economy for likely the better part of the upcoming decade? Why stop your measure over 40 years ago, long before most of the people here were even born?

Why not tell interracial married couples “Try living in 1966 and not being able to get legally married to your spouse of a different race. lol”

Why not tell women and “Try living in 1918 and not being able to vote. lol”

I don’t think any of that is any worse off than it was a few years ago though.

You’re being intellectually dishonest if you are claiming your statement is true.

Can I ask if you are a white, well off, man?

I don’t think the world is getting “worse,” it’s just the doomscrollers on Lemmy wanting it to be worse to fit their own twisted narratives.

For many MANY groups it is getting objectively worse.

For those in the USA:

• if they are trans they are at risk for violence or legal consequences for simply going in a public bathroom.
• if they work for the federal government they have lost or are at risk for losing their livelihood.
• if the weren’t a natural born citizen of the USA they are at risk for deportation to a prison in El Salvador irrespective of their circumstances of student visa, asylum visa, green card holder, even naturalized citizens.
• if they are a women, their lives are now at risk from preventable disorders if they get pregnant
• if they are old or disabled they are now at risk of being declared dead and having their retirement Social Security income cut off
• if they are a child they are at risk of dying from preventable diseases (like measles or whooping cough) even with decades old effective vaccines available, but not used.
• if they are poor they are at risk for possible hunger and starvation as basic food assistance has been cut around the country deemed as “waste”
• if they are a veteran needing medical care they are now at risk from cuts to staff that facilitate care for the people that stood in defense of our nation.

For our great historical allies of Canada and Mexico:

• they are getting their economies destroyed because they trusted the USA to honor its own written treaties.

For the rest of the world:

• they just today the world got an unjustified kick in the shins with nearly global trade tariffs from the USA.

The only group that aren’t generally hurt yet are: well off older white men

As a member of that group I find it fucking disgusting what is being done to everyone that isn’t in this group at the hands of this group.

I want to see desktop

Some kind of VNC setup

For a Windows user RDP is familiar and fairly high performance experience. I’m a fan xRDP for Linux desktop users accessing graphical desktop in Linux. Its not hard to set up in Linux either which is nice.

Sorry, I’m not following everyone else’s conversations. I can’t speak to what others are saying. You seem to be comfortable aggregating the conversations and expecting others to do the same, so I can see why you have that response. Clearly we’re at the end of productive conversation. You’re welcome to continue replying if you like, but I won’t be reading your responses.

I’m arguing non-homeowner had zero risk and should have zero equity.

The non-homeowner put zero money down for the purchase, they put none of their credit at risk, they took on no liability for the property, and so far there’s no mention of their obligation to pay for upkeep and repairs. Doing those things are the requirements of home ownership while the benefit is the equity. The non-homeowner simply hasn’t done the things to be a home owner. If the did, then they’d be a home owner.

You and I are conversing and you want me to chase your other conversations with other people? I think you’ve overestimated my interest in what I believe is your flawed argument. I guess we’re done then. Have a nice day!

Then please complete your argument. One person is contributing money into the equity of the house without ownership, and I believe you’re arguing that is unfair, because the homeowner its benefiting.

What actions are you proposing is fair to the non-homeowner that doesn’t make it unfair to the homeowner?

I would hope you treat your SO as an equal partner, but that also means healthy boundaries equal to where the relationship is at the time. If one doesn’t pay rent, but pays toward the mortgage, and you break up instead of getting married, do you expect the home owner partner to cut the other partner a check to cash them out of their “equity”? How is that fair to the homeowner?

It doesn’t matter if there isn’t a written lease. Its still very much a rental arrangement. No law enforcement will hold her liable for being a homeowner. No law will compel her to pay for a new roof for his house, should it need it. In fact, if she’s been there more than 30 days she’ll likely have many legal protections a renter has, such as protection from being thrown out without formal eviction.

Because when they break up she has nothing and he has her money in the form of equity. Splitting consumption bills is obviously good, but splitting a mortgage where one party gets it all is far less cut and dry.

The person renting (man or woman, if the situation was reversed on gender) has no responsibility for maintenance or liability to the house. If the renter is paying rent, they should also have no responsibility to pay for any house maintenance. Roof needs replacing? Homeowner pays, renter pays nothing. Fridge goes out? Homeowner pays, renter pays nothing. Mail carrier slips on ice and sues? Homeowner need to defend themselves, renter pays nothing. If the renter wants to break up and move to Alaska, renter can do exactly that with 30 days or less notice. Homeowner would need to go through all the trouble of evicting and selling the property to do the same.