Ok thank you, this is probably a good idea. I think there are a lot of people who will still object because they believe that someone deserves to make money off the homes, but it is probably an easier approach.

Ah ok, that's fair.

This is actually a nice point. They're not paying for the service, they're paying for housing.

That they pay someone else to hire people, or that they pay someone else to do the work of maintaining the property? Because my issue is that they consider paying someone else to do the work to be work itself because they're "managing" things.

She would likely be angry with me for a while if I said this lol

Lol I like this one, using their own logic against them.

:mao-shining:

deleted by creator

The usual response to this is that "the landlord manages the property and deserves to earn money". They consider hiring people to do the work to be work itself unfortunately.

How do you argue against libs who make the argument of "well the landlords need to pay their bills too". I've tried to have this argument with my Mom and it's very difficult to get my point across because she doesn't see the landlord tenant relationship as parasitic. They always try to say that landlords take care of the property but we all know that landlords hire someone else to accomplish that and will generally do the bare minimum for tenants.

I think it's kind of funny that the Dems and Republicans are STILL aggressively bickering with each other over the election on Twitter. When people say that the two party system has distracted the working class and created an illusion of choice, they are certainly not wrong.

The comment section of that post is full of libs with #resistance in their bio calling Stalin a fascist. It's so predictable.

Comment see you repeated over and over again: "if you have access to the vaccine, take it". Such a rediculous and individualistic mindset.

Sorry about that, the way that you worded that sentence made it seem slightly sarcastic. It turns out that the information that I was recalling was not from a specific study, but was derived from a textbook written by a sociologist. The name of this textbook is Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life 2nd Edition by Annette Lareau. I have not read the actual book myself, but I do know that it discusses some generalized differences that occur between "high SES" and "low SES" children. One concept that I learned in a university class is that high SES children are actively monitored by parents to directly foster growth, while low SES children have more autonomy and develop skills and talents more naturally. As this relies on the liberal concept of socioeconomic status I suspect that this sociologist may have a liberal background, but there is probably some interesting information if you're interested in differences in how the wealthy and working class raise their children.

I was expecting r/historymemes. Wow....

Also I'm not sure how serious you are with the last sentence, but I do know of some research that has shown some generalized differences between how working class and more wealthy families raise their children.

I believe that it's regardless of parental political orientation, which actually makes it very interesting to me. I think the gist of the paper is that parental abuse distorts our perception of the intentions behind others' behavior, which has implications for our political views. Mainly that abuse leads people to attribute hostility to others behavior, which creates a desire for authoritarianism. This is combined with displaced emotion from being abused.

Honestly I think he's just poking fun at alienation.

Hey the paper is Authoritarianism, Anger and Hostile Attribution Bias (Milburn, Niwa, Patterson 2014). https://www.jstor.org/stable/43785848?seq=1 Sorry for my late response here.

I grew up in a very lib city (you can guess which one by my username) and my dad is and remains an obama-type lib. I used to be semi-friends with this guy in high school who was a massive fan of Marx. I was in a school club with him. He never really tried to teach me about Marxism but he would tell me how great Marx was. Unfortunately I never really became interested and thought his interest in Marx was bizaare. Later in high school I somehow got added to a facebook group that belonged to the Socialist Club in my high school (btw the club was labeled as "Unknown Club" or some shit in the yearbook). Idk if they added me because I was friends with a few people in the club or saw that I could be moved to the left, but I never really took an interest because I just kind of assumed that socialism was bad because of liberal propaganda. I also never showed up to the irl club meetings. During college I realized how fucked America is and became a soc dem and a Bernie supporter. I started listening to David Pakman on YouTube. I liked Pakman's views but started to seek out other media because I grew sick of him complaining about Trump. Somehow, this lead me to listening to Zizek lectures on YouTube, which really appealed to me because he ranted about the pretentious and fake white liberals that I grew up around. This opened my eyes to more radical views. After this I listened to Vaush for a short time (I know) but found him obnoxious. Then I moved on to communities like r/genzedong and r/shitliberalssay, and discovered Hakim on YouTube. Also listened to some Parenti stuff. This stuff totally instilled communism into my psyche and I started to read theory after that.

Don’t have answers to your questions, but I did a psych research paper on hostile attribution bias. I remember a study that found that having abusive parents had a connection with developing authoritarian (likely reactionary but I don’t remember) political views, which was mediated by hostile attribution bias. I can try to link that study if you want.