this post was submitted on 29 May 2026
133 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

84996 readers
3217 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 13 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

LOL

Yes they do deserve it.

People shouldn't have second homes. This fucks over everyone trying to buy their first home.

Everyone agrees landlord's are shit, airbnb's are worse.

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world -1 points 15 hours ago

Unadulterated crabs-in-a bucket thinking

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works -2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I see nothing wrong with someone having two homes. What is an issue is some hedge fund owning 5,000 homes or the rapidly approaching trillionaire individuals. These are the people eating up all our resources. Maligning someone who is just barely above the rest of the population in terms of wealth just divides what should be a united front against the rich amongst the people.

You're essentially arguing that you want people to remain in poverty because the second someone gets out of poverty, you label them as "the enemy" which is pretty fucked up.

[–] SnoringEarthworm@sh.itjust.works 12 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

I see nothing wrong with someone having two homes.

I do.

I used to get my meals from food pantries and churches.

The rule was: no one gets seconds until everyone's been served.

If that makes me an evil commie or something, fine. It feels less evil than homelessness and plural homeownership existing at the same time.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works -2 points 14 hours ago

But why should your food bank or church allow you to have seconds when there are other food banks and churches out there that ran out early before serving everyone? Why should you get a food bank at all when there are places that have none?!

This logic can always be applied to any situation because there are always worse situations to be found. You're not solving anything by tearing down the guy who now earns enough to buy a meal or two at a restaurant in comparison because he's not far off from your own situation. Attack the guy who buys the $10,000 lunch and doesn't even finish it. They're the tiny minority that have the biggest impact on the rest of us.