greencactus

That is true only to some extent. Frances Wright, who admittedly lived later than Washington (1795-1852), was one of the most vocal public abolitionists in the USA to the extent of my knowledge. Specifically, she was a feminist and abolitionist. Both she and Jefferson were Epicureans and knew the sources well, but she drew other, more ethical, conclusions, and supported the fight for abolition.

It is important to keep in mind that she was living later than Jefferson, and thus had access to different sources than he did. However, her example demonstrates that it was not impossible, even back then, to recognize that owning slaves was wrong and unethical. While I agree that it was typical for the elites to do it regardless, I want to emphasize that the sources to recognize that slavery was wrong were already there. Many people simply chose to ignore it.

Thus my stance is that it definitely was a sign of the times that it was widespread, I think the defining feature of the time was that people chose to ignore ethical conclusions. It isn't just a sign of the time that people kept slaves - it was sign of the time that people chose to keep slaves even though they could've recognized that it was wrong and unethical.

I hope my point is understandeable. Just adding my two cents :)

I think you meant Lemmy.world instead of reddit.world. or have I missed part of the joke here?

I absolutely agree. Very well written, and you did an amazing job by highlighting the difference between responsibility (which is neutral) and fault (which is negative) here.

Very interesting article! Thank you for sharing it.

No, that would be socialism!!1!!! No socialism in 'Murica!!1!!!1!

Thank you for your reply! I will think about the first point. I didn't consider that second homes tend to increase property values in the area - that's a valid point.

I disagree with your second paragraph. When you rent a house at its price, aka only and exactly the price for electricity, water, and repairs of the building, I don't see any exploitation in it because you effectively aren't making any profit from the person living there.

However, I'm replying from a German standpoint. I presume that in the USA, the situation is different and in an advanced stadium of dystopican capitalism, so probably my thoughts aren't fully applicable.

Thank you for replying! I appreciate it.

Amazing write-up! And congratulations for the achievement. Well done!

Amazing game :))

Mh, I agree, but also disagree to some extent. I am a Democratic socialist and think that means of production should be used for the greater good, so keeping a house in order to make profit is exactly that: private property of means of production with the goal of $$$.

However, I think the question goes deeper than that. I think it's absolutely valid for a family to have a secondary home, e.g. when they want to go to a vacation. Sometimes renting out a hostel is difficult, one might not like the hostels available, or a plethora of other reasons. As soon as the person owning the house uses it for themselves for a significant amount of time, it isn't really a means of production anymore, but a private property. What is important in my opinion is that the time when the house isn't used by the owner, other people have a chance to use it - cheap AirBnB covering the costs maybe?

Tl;DR - renting the house out to others to make profit: yes, unethical. Earning money by a human necessity is, in my opinion, not right. Using the house yourself and/or renting it for sustenance cost: absolutely valid. You don't use the means of production to take money from the people, you use it for your own (and society's) benefit.

Oh what?! Oh my gosh, these are terrible news. For all not in the loop, here is an Article.

I am really disappointed by this. This is just such a bad monopolistic practice that I'm wondering how in their right mind anyone from Reddit decided this was a good deal to make. On the other hand, it is Reddit, so what did I expect :/

My eyes...

The joke never gets old ;)