this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2026
579 points (98.3% liked)

Political Memes

12458 readers
2961 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] whereitsat@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

i'd argue that's there's nothing depressing about homelessness if you divorce it from cultural ideas about the housed, the houseless, comfort and class and laws.

what are you lacking if you have no home? no netflix? no bed? people survived without those things for thousands of years. what they're lacking is dignity and freedom.

you have no agency as a living being when you're 'homeless'--you can't hunt here because it's owned land; you can't park here because it's owned land, you can't build a shelter because it's owned land, etc.

without those restrictions plenty of people would choose to be homeless.

[–] Nautalax@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Any new housing is still helpful for alleviating the crunch. If a rich people see a fancy new apartment and move in, that leaves the old places they had occupied available to be rented or bought and they have to be offered at a relative discount to what they would have been otherwise because the rich people prefer the fancy new place. (Note: if people in that area are snapping up housing at a faster rate than housing is being made available, that would still manifest as rising prices but with the prices rising at a slower rate than they would have otherwise.) That’s an opportunity for the less rich people to secure a spot where the rich people used to be, so they move out of their older and less nice places and so on to relocate. Within five years or so that propagates down the vacancy chain and opens up low income housing as well.

Also many times any kind of new apartment is called “luxury” as a marketing gimmick since it’s not really a controlled term and it makes people think of it as a more attractive place to live.

More housing needs to be built to alleviate the housing crisis. Unfortunately with housing also doubling for many as their largest investment and a retirement vehicle all rolled in one, people get absolutely furious if anything is done that would appreciably reduce the price of housing. Because homeowners make up so much of society and particularly politically influential society those interests are very politically difficult to take on.

[–] halezinflames@lemmus.org 6 points 16 hours ago

I would rather have a shitty roof over my head than no roof.

[–] SpiceDealer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Brutalism may not be the most aesthetically pleasing architecture style but, damn, did it house a lot of people who would've died.

[–] bluesheep@sh.itjust.works 6 points 17 hours ago

It's also always a picture from mid-winter times. Never one from summer or springs

[–] spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 12 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

I will stand ten toes down to defend that brutalism, as the philosophy of being honest with your material usage, is the most Beautiful form of architecture.

Most people will agree that mid century architecture is one of America's most beautiful designs. The school of thought behind all famous mid century architecture is always that of honest material usage.

Now what does honest materials mean? It means when you're using wood, you emphasize the grain. If you're using metals, you embrace it's utility. Stainless steel conveys surgical levels of cleanliness. When using brass or copper, the patina is expected. Stonework, isn't used as a façade. The inclusion of masonry is obviously structural, and it's implementation is deliberate and planned out like a painting.

[–] LazyOldPervert@lemmus.org 1 points 3 hours ago

I mean sure but philosophical honesty in architecture ≠ aesthetically pleasing

[–] multifariace@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

All the recent major condo/apartment builds near me in Florida has been quite dishonest while appearing brutalist. They build huge wood frame buildings the plaster it like its solid block. Everyone I know talks about how they expect devastation in a hurricane for those structures. Also, firewalls are apparently a thing of the past. And none of these cost cutting homes are for working people. They are for 55+ communities or high price condos.

[–] spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 2 points 19 hours ago

Yes, this infuriates me to no end. The whole "modern" aesthetic is dishonesty. And they have the gall to call their glorified tinder boxes luxury too. The word completely lost it's meaning.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I know several very conservative people that believe all government buildings, or ones that receive any government funding, should be featureless concrete rectangles with no other whatsoever.

So i didn't know what this dude's talking about .

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 4 hours ago

As if you can equate an architectural style to a political philosophy.

[–] Ghoelian@piefed.social 16 points 1 day ago

I would rather have a few boring tall buildings and lots of nature than lots of single family homes and way less nature.

[–] VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

"People in America really will spend $5,000 on a sweater. No piece of clothing should cost $5,000. You know what should cost $5,000? A car. And you know who should build that car? The same people that currently build $500,000 cars. The best and most talented among us should do the work that benefits the most amount of people for what good is everything to everyone who can't afford it"

Kanye West

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

classic case of a broken clock being right twice a day

[–] VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

Before he completely lost it he was a super good dude that use to preach a lot of really good messages

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Said right before he dropped a $245 pair of goddamned sneakers...

[–] VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

He wanted his shoes to be affordable but nobody would let him do it

He was trying to make an entire Yeezy fashion brand that unlike other celebrity sponsored clothes was going to be affordable so that kids could actually afford it

But the companies that did work with him wouldn't let him have full control like he wanted so the shoes were limited run, pricy, etc... and eventually he kind of had to do it himself which means it had to be expensive. It was his dream to build it up so that he could make $30 T-Shirts and $60 shoes

But Bipolar is a real bitch and well, without his medicine, he pretty much just lost his mind

[–] tacoplease@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Shaq already paved the way to do that. Kanye could have easily followed a similar path.

[–] VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Shaq was an athlete so companies approached him

Kanye was a rapper who was reaching out to shoe companies with an idea

[–] tacoplease@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Shaq approached Payless Shoes to launch his own brand instead of extending his contract with Reebok. That's why Shaq shoes were only $40.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

...
And... you actually believe that? That he couldn't find a company to make his sneakers but for cheaper than Nike?

[–] VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

yeah, it was a pretty big deal at the time

He wasn't an athlete so no clothing or shoe company came to him, he just wanted to do it and was approaching them. To which they basically said, "you're a rapper not a fashion designer". While they were OK putting his name on shoes, they weren't OK with letting him take control and set the price points and stuff

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I'm sorry, I was unclear. The part where Nike didn't give up creative or manufacturing (or distribution) control is totally believable - the part I'm struggling to find credible is that he couldn't then find anyone willing to agree to manufacture shoes to his specs and then let him arrange for distribution. That's... just not how that works. Donald "the rapist" Trump can figure out how to do that, but Ye couldn't?

I can totally believe nobody came to him about it, but all that means is he didn't want to work with a generic brand he approached. It would have been almost trivial to solve the problem if he were serious about an affordable clothing brand, rather than a trendy clothing brand.

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Go to the poor neighborhood in any city in America and its just as sad. Go to a poor rural area and it's worse.

[–] 2hundredpancakes@lemmy.blahaj.zone 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Communism bad because [thing that happens in capitalism]*", vol. 69

Meanwhile, in God's Own Chosen Land, all apartment complexes are one of two shitty design options and we get fleeced for the "privilege" of living there. Fuck it all, dammit

[–] Gormadt@slrpnk.net 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't forget that they're marketed as "Luxury Apartments" because the appliances were made in the last 10 years.

[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 12 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Here I thought it was cause you have the luxury of paying rent on them

[–] BooBees@fedinsfw.app 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s the luxury of breathing in mold spores from inside the walls and under the landlord special coat of paint

[–] Gormadt@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"These are boutique spores, you won't find these anywhere else in this city. For the privilege of being able to breathe them in you owe me an extra $200 per month."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ashrakal@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 day ago (6 children)

There are far better options for visually pleasant housing than these Soviet Union era blocks.

Like, seeing so many of these in Poland or other post-Soviet countries is just sad. They’re grey, neglected, and the people who are forced to choose them don’t have any other option.

We could have affordable housing that has some proper aesthetics. Just got to take care of the real estate developer mafias around the world first.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 hours ago

Like Finland. Their recently built public housing is pretty aesthetically pleasing

[–] stormeuh@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

That's in part because they are far past their original designed lifespan, as these were meant to give everyone a house. Despite their other egregious excesses, the Soviets at least said they believed in housing as a human right, and implemented policies to that effect. Not only for building housing at record rates with innovative prefab construction, but also for upkeep of those buildings.

That is in stark contrast to the radical chicago school of economics "reforms" after the collapse of the soviet union, which basically created an oligarchy overnight. Those buildings were sold for pennies at private auctions to private landlords. Whole populations who used to have the security of free public housing, suddenly found themselves having to rent the house they have always lived in. Meanwhile those landlords never have nor will invest anything in upkeep, which likely accelerated the deterioration of these buildings significantly.

I do agree social housing should if possible be beautiful. However, the first concern should always be to build enough of it so everyone who wants housing can get it. Most of the western world is in a deep housing crisis, so IMO any social housing is beautiful.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago (4 children)

It would be relatively cheap and easy to retrofit them with moss/fern panel facades or other types of plants. Improves the visual appeal while also contributing to cleaner air and cooler temperatures, and creating food/habitat for wildlife.

There's really no reason not to do it.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] itrealgood@mander.xyz 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Criminalised homelessness that enslaves you in the prison system

[–] Gormadt@slrpnk.net 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So American Homelessness...

A further "bonus" is that once you get a conviction on record it makes it even harder to get out of homelessness by not only making it incredibly difficult to get a job but also any place you might rent that does a background check.

It's a vicious cycle of worse and worse outcomes.

I was homeless for 8 years (January actually marked 8 years being in my apartment) and I saw that cycle constantly.

[–] leftOverLife@lemmy.ml 3 points 22 hours ago

Same comrade..so many amazing people I've known are either dead or locked up for extended sentences because of that cycle. We were the rarities that actually made it out!

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

the first fallacy is that this was "left-wing" architecture.

It was just boring architecture from Russia, built rapidly during a time of extreme homelessness. And it addressed that problem more than fatcat hate.

[–] OakTree@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago

Everything they don’t like is left wing. Their brain doesn’t function beyond that.

[–] m3t00@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

some sort of communism = left wing, propaganda. who built those boxes? why?

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago

The answer usually is the Soviet Union. And the why is usually because it was cheaper to do it that way.

What's more interesting is the way liberal built housing in America is done where they tend to purposely make the housing a little bit shitty so that poor people can't feel like they live in good housing because it would be wrong to "get something worthwhile for nothing". Because even the liberals in the United States are a bunch of capitalist assholes.

[–] Malica@lemmy.zip 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Construction has political bias now?

[–] III@lemmy.world 9 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Anything that isn't stepping on the necks of the poor is political. Anything going out of it's way to harm the poor is just fine.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] potpotato@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago
[–] Airfried@piefed.social 10 points 1 day ago

I'm pretty sure a lot of the people mocking socialist architecture became really quiet when a data center was dropped next to their suburb.

[–] CobraChicken3000@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

People of that opinion should really read Brian Goldstone's "There is No Place for Us: Working and Homeless in America." Compared to other G7 countries, US is, indeed, a shithole country.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›