Topic: Let's Lynch the landlord
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 years ago #103,347
man
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #1,166,339
How does one shtick the landlord?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,340
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,349
Mao was right
Dead !Pool..v42s joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,364
Not all of them are doing bad, but maybe lynch the corporate landowners? Eat the richcorporations!
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,366
Hang the DJ.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,368
Landlords make money by simply existing, and charge people for the right to exist. #eattherich
Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 46 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,382
@previous (A)
They also take care of all property maintenance, which people renting living space may be unable to afford. 🤔🤔🤔
They also take care of all property maintenance, which people renting living space may be unable to afford. 🤔🤔🤔
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,384
@previous (B)
Oh wow! How noble of them to actually take care of the home of someone who is paying them for the right to exist!
Oh wow! How noble of them to actually take care of the home of someone who is paying them for the right to exist!
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 years ago, 17 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,385
Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 13 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,387
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,388
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,389
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,390
@previous (G)
Jot land owners, but landlords in particular: those who charge rent to the poor so they have shelter.
Jot land owners, but landlords in particular: those who charge rent to the poor so they have shelter.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,391
@1,166,388 (A)
Then why, praytell, aren't you making your Land openly available for poor people to live on? 🤔🤔🤔
Then why, praytell, aren't you making your Land openly available for poor people to live on? 🤔🤔🤔
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B double-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,392
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 22 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,393
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,394
@1,166,391 (B)
He is so evil that he would refuse access to live on his land at any price! It sounds like he is SO greedy that he would turn away ANY reasonable offer from people desperate to simply exist (on his land)
He is so evil that he would refuse access to live on his land at any price! It sounds like he is SO greedy that he would turn away ANY reasonable offer from people desperate to simply exist (on his land)
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,395
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 14 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,437
I'm a landlord, should I be lynched?
𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞 joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,439
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Did you purchase property with the sole intention of profiteering from the predatory exploitation of a basic human need?
Did you purchase property with the sole intention of profiteering from the predatory exploitation of a basic human need?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,440
@previous (𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞)
I had a friend who didn't have a house and was going to be homeless soon. So I purchased a house and I charge them just enough to pay the property taxes
I had a friend who didn't have a house and was going to be homeless soon. So I purchased a house and I charge them just enough to pay the property taxes
𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞 replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,441
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
A landlord is a professional house-renter. What you're doing is allowing a person to live in your property, which isn't the same thing. It's actually kinda the opposite now I think about it.
A landlord is a professional house-renter. What you're doing is allowing a person to live in your property, which isn't the same thing. It's actually kinda the opposite now I think about it.
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,442
@previous (𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞)
doing a thing as your sole profession is not a requirement of being someone doing that thing
doing a thing as your sole profession is not a requirement of being someone doing that thing
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Jello Biafra (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,446
Jello Biafra (OP) double-posted this 3 years ago, 24 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,447
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,449
Are you Matt?
Jello Biafra (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,452
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I am Jello Biafra, former singer for Dead Kennedys and now a Spoken Word artist.
I am Jello Biafra, former singer for Dead Kennedys and now a Spoken Word artist.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,454
@previous (Jello Biafra)
Because it would be really weird for Matt to be anti landlord
Because it would be really weird for Matt to be anti landlord
(Edited 6 seconds later.)
Jello Biafra (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,455
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,459
Jello Biafra (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,462
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,463
@previous (Jello Biafra)
He himself grew up wealthy and comes from a family that makes their money from cheating and embezzling. Not just from other rich people, but also normal taxpayers
He himself grew up wealthy and comes from a family that makes their money from cheating and embezzling. Not just from other rich people, but also normal taxpayers
Jello Biafra (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,464
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Not so. No one is "cheating and embezzling". His family made their money from oil exploration. And yes, I know him in real life because he is well-known in the punk community.
Not so. No one is "cheating and embezzling". His family made their money from oil exploration. And yes, I know him in real life because he is well-known in the punk community.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 48 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,471
@previous (Jello Biafra)
> And yes, I know him in real life because he is well-known in the punk community.
Never heard of whoever you're talking about.
> And yes, I know him in real life because he is well-known in the punk community.
Never heard of whoever you're talking about.
𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞 replied with this 3 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,477
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 59 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,479
@previous (𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞)
no it’s not. A landlord is anybody renting or leasing real estate property to another entity; it doesn’t matter why they’re doing it or whether they manage a large portfolio of properties
no it’s not. A landlord is anybody renting or leasing real estate property to another entity; it doesn’t matter why they’re doing it or whether they manage a large portfolio of properties
boof joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,515
@1,166,366 (F)
> Hang the DJ.
Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.
> Hang the DJ.
Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.Hang the DJ.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,521
𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞 replied with this 3 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,547
Anonymous H replied with this 3 years ago, 22 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,647
@previous (𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞)
Nobody re-defined the word “landlord” for the purposes of this topic, so we have to go with the normal definition. Thanks thanks thanks
Nobody re-defined the word “landlord” for the purposes of this topic, so we have to go with the normal definition. Thanks thanks thanks
Meowth joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 47 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,655
𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞 replied with this 3 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,671
@1,166,647 (H)
OP is using socialist talking points, which refers to professional landlords as "landlords". Thanks!
OP is using socialist talking points, which refers to professional landlords as "landlords". Thanks!
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,702
@previous (𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞)
The pro socialist, anti work people consider all types of landlords to be evil. Also Op grew up very rich
The pro socialist, anti work people consider all types of landlords to be evil. Also Op grew up very rich
𝔹𝕝𝕠𝕞 replied with this 3 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,744
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 52 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,758
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 49 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,767
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,784
Anonymous D replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,806
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,818
I love workers and hate those who leech off the working class. That includes the anti-work
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,820
@previous (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
Does that include government workers who get paid $50,000 to stroll a bit and place letters in boxes a few minutes per day?
Does that include government workers who get paid $50,000 to stroll a bit and place letters in boxes a few minutes per day?
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw replied with this 3 years ago, 39 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,822
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,828
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,836
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,166,837
Glug. No it's not. You've been reading too much output from the Robert Amsterdam propaganda mill. Robert Amsterdam is a paid political lobbyist who specializes in character assassination of politicians and movements opposed to his client. He likes to pitch himself as a "human rights activist" but he simply uses human rights as one tool in his portfolio for harassing his client's rivals. At the moment, Robert Amsterdam is being paid by Thaksin Shinawatra so everything he says and does is determined by the need to promote the interests of his client. Since both the client and the interests are very unsavory, this requires substantial prevarication and obfuscation.
Before going into what's been happening in Bangkok this year, some background is essential. Not just on Thaksin Shinawatra himself but also on Thai politics in general. Let's start with Thaksin. The man is a billionaire who made his pile getting sweetheart deal contracts from the Thai Government for work in modernizing Thai telecommunications infrastructure. He was also a Lieutenant Colonel in the Thai Police. When he first entered politics, his act was quite revolutionary. Normally a Thai political campaign consists of the candidate publishing lists of worthy people who support him. In effect, they provide lists of references that more or less state "I am a good person and can be trusted to work in your interests." People then voted for whoever paid them the most. In Thailand, it's quite possible to have a worthwhile debate on whether vote buying is wrong or not. Thaksin changed that. He conducted a western-style campaign that put a portfolio of promised policies out and invited people to judge his party on the basis of those policies. This was so different that it worked rather well. His Party became the largest in the Thai Parliament and he pushed through the items on his agenda (low cost medical care, low-interest loans for farmers and a few other things, all calculated to endear himself to the rural population - note still buying votes but wholesale rather than retail and using Government money to do it). When the next election came up, his party wasn't just the largest one, it actually had an overall majority.
This made Thaksin's real objectives critical. Thaksin is (or was) a great admirer of the Singaporean model of government and industry. He wanted to create a new Thai state in which there was a single party (controlled by him) and a single corporate entity (controlled by him). The fact that Singapore doesn't really work that way is neither here nor there. Thaksin wanted a state where there was no center of government or economic power that was outside his control. With a majority in Parliament, he set about achieving just that. Hold that thought.
Now, let's look at Thai politics. Thailand is an odd place; it's one of the few countries in the world where the political establishment openly says "we're politicians, don’t trust us." There is an ongoing presumption in the country that political shakeups should never be seen in terms of black and white. The message is to look with skepticism on political changes and to assume that all political movements are corrupt and tainted by greed and ambition. There is an assumption that all are backed by a hidden hand that is pushing a secret agenda. This is an intensely cynical view of course, and one that leaves no room to suppose that a protest is both genuine and sincere.
Before going into what's been happening in Bangkok this year, some background is essential. Not just on Thaksin Shinawatra himself but also on Thai politics in general. Let's start with Thaksin. The man is a billionaire who made his pile getting sweetheart deal contracts from the Thai Government for work in modernizing Thai telecommunications infrastructure. He was also a Lieutenant Colonel in the Thai Police. When he first entered politics, his act was quite revolutionary. Normally a Thai political campaign consists of the candidate publishing lists of worthy people who support him. In effect, they provide lists of references that more or less state "I am a good person and can be trusted to work in your interests." People then voted for whoever paid them the most. In Thailand, it's quite possible to have a worthwhile debate on whether vote buying is wrong or not. Thaksin changed that. He conducted a western-style campaign that put a portfolio of promised policies out and invited people to judge his party on the basis of those policies. This was so different that it worked rather well. His Party became the largest in the Thai Parliament and he pushed through the items on his agenda (low cost medical care, low-interest loans for farmers and a few other things, all calculated to endear himself to the rural population - note still buying votes but wholesale rather than retail and using Government money to do it). When the next election came up, his party wasn't just the largest one, it actually had an overall majority.
This made Thaksin's real objectives critical. Thaksin is (or was) a great admirer of the Singaporean model of government and industry. He wanted to create a new Thai state in which there was a single party (controlled by him) and a single corporate entity (controlled by him). The fact that Singapore doesn't really work that way is neither here nor there. Thaksin wanted a state where there was no center of government or economic power that was outside his control. With a majority in Parliament, he set about achieving just that. Hold that thought.
Now, let's look at Thai politics. Thailand is an odd place; it's one of the few countries in the world where the political establishment openly says "we're politicians, don’t trust us." There is an ongoing presumption in the country that political shakeups should never be seen in terms of black and white. The message is to look with skepticism on political changes and to assume that all political movements are corrupt and tainted by greed and ambition. There is an assumption that all are backed by a hidden hand that is pushing a secret agenda. This is an intensely cynical view of course, and one that leaves no room to suppose that a protest is both genuine and sincere.
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 years later, 2 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,297,301
It's a relentless tug-of-war, with strategic maneuvers and calculations. In metros like Bangkok and Chiang Mai, one encounters a landscape where landlords wield as much power as the hebrew lendlord.Relentless pursuit of prime real estate often leaves tenants ensnared in a sticky web of metephorical cum (obligations and unequal bargaining power) Try navigating a labyrinthine legal terrain... the odds are stacked against them from the outset. You know the disparity in resources and expertise between landlords and tenants perpetuates a system where the latter often find themselves at a distinct disadvantage. Each move made by these landlords is planned to consolidate their dominance, and there is little room for negotiation for those caught in their grasp. It's a sobering realization that the game, so to speak, is rigged from the outset, with landlords adeptly manipulating the rules to their advantage while tenants struggle to maintain even footing.
The plight of tenants in this environment is not merely a matter of individual circumstance but a reflection of systemic inequalities embedded within the legal framework governing property rights and landlord-tenant relations. In essence, it's a complex interplay of legal acumen, power dynamics, and socioeconomic factors that perpetuates the cycle of exploitation and marginalization in Neosiam.
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 7 hours later, 2 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,297,346
its rentoid as fuck in here. can any of you oxygen theirs explain why its so morally reprehensible to operate what is essentially the housing version of tracphones?
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 2 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,297,348
How does a two year old thread suddenly appear on the front page? I thought old topics were automatically locked after they fall inactive.
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 2 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,297,351
Nearly one third of the united states is public land, on the vast majority of which, you're at liberty to exist at no charge. One of the many benefits of US citizenship!
(Edited 8 minutes later.)