Option 3), I sell the house, move into an appropriately sized apartment, and put most of the profits from the sale into a stock market index fund, whose dividends pay my rent
-
Show this thread
-
Here's my thing All three of these options involve me still owning capital, they're all different ways to be a capitalist The assertion there's a hard moral bright line between option 1) and the other two seems wrong to me
9 replies 4 retweets 77 likesShow this thread -
They all involve taking some kind of unearned economic surplus that exists based on the fact that houses are a thing you can own in our capitalist system 3) isn't any less capitalist than 1), it just crowdsources the capitalism so you can't see it and have no control over it
2 replies 0 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
(It does so on both ends, because whatever I put my pile of cash other than giving it away I'm contributing to some kind of investment in private property And because even if I sell the house to a deserving family of five I have no control over them renting it out or selling it)
2 replies 0 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
And, like, holding up the people who do 2) as making the moral choice seems extremely perverse to me, that's the NIMBY outlook Again it's just deeply perverse to say that the landlord in situation 1) is wielding power over someone but 2) is "staying out of people's lives"
2 replies 1 retweet 31 likesShow this thread -
As someone in the situation of desperately needing a place to live, I wouldn't think landlords were doing me any kind of favor, I'd obviously prefer to stay someplace for free, but on a brutal practical level anyone who picks 2 instead of 1 is fucking me over
2 replies 0 retweets 33 likesShow this thread -
I feel like there's a form of discourse that says if you get your hands dirty you're always worse than someone who doesn't That you don't get to judge people who haven't "gotten involved" in a situation but once they "are involved" then you be to hold them to an ideal standard
4 replies 2 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
-
Replying to @randonerd
Specifically one of the interesting things about asking people about the trolley problem is they have a HUGE unexamined bias over whether people are "already involved"
1 reply 2 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @randonerd
Like if you tell people the version where there's five people on one track and one person on the other, you get a certain split of responses If you change it so that the one person is just chilling in their yard and the trolley has to go off the rails to kill them, it changes
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes
People are way more willing to kill the one person if they're "already on the tracks" than if "they were never part of this situation and just got dragged into it", even though that makes no sense and is impossible to defend if you flat out say it like that
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect
Wondering if this is akin to the reasoning that we use to throw disadvantaged people under the bus. (Or the trolley.) "Yeah it's sad my neighbor has PTSD but he's already screwed. By setting off these fireworks at least ONE of us will be happy."
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @VagrantAmateur @arthur_affect
And after the fireworks let's vote for Trump because "what have black people got to lose"? The net utility of the entire group is already zero: any additional suffering is meaningless.
0 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.