• goat@sh.itjust.worksOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    It’s always so cute seeing Hexbear users fail time and time again at how the fediverse works. Remember when they made posts saying, “Hey, we gotta get more opinions and diversity!” and less than a day they bugged out?

    This poor comrade had to go through a list of 60 different users to ban them from posting on Hexbear!

    Oh? you didn’t get your ban message? That’s because Hexbear is defederated, lmao, they keep going through three separate communities posts, from beginning to end, banning users who are already banned!

  • PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s pathetic. I wish I could laugh at this example, but it’s just really… sad.

  • daftantimony@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Typical ML. If there’s something they like more than a good purge, it must be to justify it.

    • goat@sh.itjust.worksOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      No, tankies are allowed so long as they follow the rules! They can talk about communism and argue how bad capitalism is. What they can’t do is talk positively about the atrocities by authoritarian regimes.

      you can even check out the modlog! I make sure not to ban anyone for more than a week and always give a warning beforehand.

      • adriaan@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        They are authoritarians first and foremost, so it’s a bit of a tough one for them there

      • cacheson@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I think my favorite was the one that came in here hoping to get a rise out of us by saying “death to landlords”. I mean, definitely 3edgy5me, but otherwise yes, landlords bad? I feel like that sentiment could win a majority vote here.

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s so ridiculous because the majority of things they believe are nonoffensive or agreeable to the left broadly, but they are SO. GODDAMN. INSISTENT. on throating authoritarian cocks that they are absolutely intolerable as political allies.

          • Someonelol@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            This. They believe in a lot of the things we do but don’t want to believe their heroes are fucking monsters. Their unwavering support of the trans and gay communities is great, but Marx help you if you bring up the USSR and CCP didn’t take kindly to them. They could be allies to other leftists but end up being insufferable.

          • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            10 months ago

            When even the capitalists can see that rentseeking is bad for the economy, I’m not sure why we have to fight over it all the time. Classic case of zealots not reading their own literature I guess.

            • 018118055@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Rent seeking in classical economics is about monopolists abusing their market position. I’m sure there are some monopolistic landlords but doubt it’s the average case.

              • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                10 months ago

                The rent of the land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give.

                I’m not sure even Adam Smith of all people agrees with you

                • 018118055@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Good quote thanks. I suppose he refers to the specific plot of land being rented. Still, I’m just telling what I learned in my economics a-level.

              • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                10 months ago

                A monopoly is not necessary, just enough influence to affect policy. The biggest landlords are some of the most abusive and manipulative, and engage in much lobbying. Their collusion is part of why housing costs so much, and the government refusing to investigate it is due to their lobbying. Literal rentseeking lol, but yes I’m aware the word isn’t usually so straightforward.

                I like this definition:

                Rentseeking is an economic concept that occurs when an entity seeks to gain added wealth without any reciprocal contribution of productivity.