given that the word 'pants ’ sounds like a plural, perhaps we can assume each leg is an independent entity and deserves its own pair of pants. i chose left.
“Everything is so bad. Yet they set nothing on fire? How do they expect to fix?” —some twitter lady’s french husband, commenting on the state of American politics
From this extremely boring Finnish perspective, you guys in America set things on fire all the time. If that happened here once, we’d give the event a name and would talk about it for decades.
Certified European here, can confirm individual member states and EU as a whole as not being a utopia.
Especially us Dutch folks who have been fucked over and held hostage by a waaay to large upper middle class for years. To the point where we’ve managed to abolish the ministry of housing, open up the housing market to foreign investors, replace a functioning healthcare system with a healthcare market where insurance firms rule with an iron fist and demand more bureacracy than actual care being provided.
… and the list goes on.
It’s a worldwide symptom of economic unequality and the decrease in social skills stemming from the fact that we live our lives increasingly isolated in our own online social bubbles. We’re turning increasingly hostile towards each other because we’re no longer confronted with all people and perspectives in our surroundings, but just the ones we like.
The United States, being a large country filled with very diverse people, despite all being taught to “love America”, still deals with Nebraskan farmers having wildly different wants and needs, and way different social standards than the Californian yuppies.
You’re a large country, with 334 million people spread out over a vast amount of land. Meanwhile, we’re 18 million living on a patch of marshy land roughly 3/4th the size of West Virgina, and we’re further from being united than ever before. The fact that you’re even holding together as a country is nothing short of amazing considering the fact that your political systems probably cause way more chaos than ours do.
A lot of Europeans probably mean it when they say “How are you even a country?”. And it’s not so much an attack on the American people as a whole (though some of y’all deserve to be made fun of), but geniuine amazement at the fact that it has more or less held together since 1776.
Thank you for sharing - I didn’t know the Dutch were getting hit with this crap, too. I always just think of it as a US and increasingly British experience.
I think the root cause is the deregulation/privatisation of everything that started in the 80s. It slanted the playing field towards those with capital at the cost of workers and the cash has been flowing into their pockets and out of ours ever since
It’s a global phenomenon, caused by infinite growth based economic modeling (you know, where you base your whole economy on extracting increasing amounts of value from finite resources).
This type of modeling has been proven wrong and debunked early in the previous century, but it is still practised because it works very well for those gaining most of the profits.
You’ll usually hear the politicians promoting policies that help the larger companies argue that such policies directly create jobs and thus economic value for the people. But this is more of that trickle-down economics bullshit that doesn’t apply in the real world.
Because politicians worldwide have been so fixated on financial gains as a measure of the economy, they fail to measure and correct on (mental) healthcare, housing, education and equality.
Just some context on how large our housing problems have become: There is currently a deficit of 450 000 homes, which is projected to grow past 500 000 by the end of 2024.
The time we stop running countries like we do companies is when we’ll see things improve.
As a nurse, I can say this is always the answer, vegetables & fruit. The American diet is horrible for the GI system. When I went vegan some years ago I started having three a day, takes less than a minute apiece
The business in this case being what? Landlords didn’t create the land, nor did they build the residence, nor did they improve its value by building a community around it. They are benefiting off of the work of others simply because they “own” it. The most common arguments I hear in support of landlords are:
Landlords take care of maintenance. Maintenance costs don’t increase 20% a year. If rent was simply maintenance costs it would be a fraction of what it currently is
Landlords allow people who cannot afford a home a place to stay. Why do you think they can’t afford a home? It’s like saying without scalpers people wouldn’t be able to see concerts because the tickets are instantly purchased by bots.
Two years ago I became a first time homeowner. I’m moving in 6 months and am going to keep this property and rent it out. I cannot afford to buy another house almost anywhere in the US. I will be renting. However, I closed on this place with 3% interest and pay $1500/mo for the mortgage, plus about $250 for utilities. Round up to $1800/mo. Anyone buying at today’s interest and value with 20% down is looking at a mortgage of about $2300/mo, before utilities.
I absolutely resent this market, but I refuse to let this place go into the hands of anyone like Blackrock. And since I don’t care about maximizing profit, I can keep the rate on the lower end and help someone live here for a few hundred a month less than they could with a new sale. I can rent it for $1700-1800/mo to cover incidentals and repair and still let a renter live here for less than a new mortgage.
I’ve been toying with the idea of counting every dollar the renter pays against the mortgage and selling to them at the difference when (if) rates come back down.
Certainly not ideal, and a little bit apologetic, but in this situation it’s about as close as I can get to a win-win. Or least lost-least lost.
You could always sell it at a low enough price to break even and just refuse to sell it to anyone besides someone who plans on actually living in it. You’re allowed to do that. Real estate agent might look at you like you’re crazy, but fuck em. It’s your house right now.
Landlords take on risk. For example, when I rented an apartment, I came home one day to a plumbing disaster. I called emergency maintenance and left. The landlord fixed it and paid for my hotel in the meantime. As a home owner now, that would be entirely on me to figure out. I’m pretty handy, but I have no disrespect for someone who doesn’t want to be responsible for that.
More importantly, selling a house costs about 10% of the value of the house, and the first few years of a mortgage you’re mostly paying interest. If you move every 3 years, it’s actually cheaper to rent than to buy. It’s just that your money is going to a landlord instead of to banks and realtors.
So while I see your argument that landlords don’t “deserve” the money they make, practically they’re an important part of the housing market, and I respect people who make an informed decision to rent.
What do you mean no choice? There’s always a choice.
Realistically many people don’t have a choice to buy, because they don’t have the credit score, reliable income, or down payment, but I don’t see why that blame falls on landlords and not on the banks or the government?
Because plenty of folks would have a solid down payment, or better credit score, if rent wasn’t so damn high. Likewise affordable rent would make it easier for folks to move to places where they could get the type of stable job necessary for a mortgage, etc. It’s not the only reason folks don’t have the economic resources at hand, but it’s usually the biggest expense in ones budget, no?
Greedy landlords are the problem, imho, and unfortunately every landlord except exactly one I’ve rented from (out of about ten in total) have been greedy assholes.
As for a fix: housing is a right, imho. I’m not an economist so anything I offer will be full of holes, but some way of securing that people have stable, safe, comfortable housing is essential. Making sure people can’t exploit the need for shelter is a big component of whatever fix we need.
I think a big component of the problem is location. I may have a different perspective living in a low cost of living city. Just a few years ago I lived in a two bedroom apartment that was $650/mo. It was old and not very nice, but totally functional and reasonably safe. It was a bigger complex so the landlord was a management company. They weren’t amazing or anything, but they held up their end of the lease. I understand the situation somewhere like NYC or California is going to be radically different.
I think that’s where a really interesting question comes in though, do people have a right to housing? Or a right to housing in the place they’re currently living? It’s a big difference. Forcibly relocating people is… Problematic at best. But there are places like LA where it’s almost physically (geologically) impossible to build enough housing for everyone who wants to live there.
If you haven’t already I’d recommend listening to the podcast mini series “according to need” by 99 percent invisible. I really appreciated the perspective it offers into some of the practical challenges of trying to get homeless people housed.
Ultimately I don’t know that I’d call housing a “right”, purely for semantic reasons, but I do think the very existence of homelessness and housing insecurity is a devastating critique of our social and economic systems. I didn’t think we’ll ever have a system that completely eliminates renting/short term housing, but we do clearly need to change a lot of things about how housing works now.
I had an enormous reply essentially “yes-and’ing” your reply (I agree with it, but wanted to add a “but” in a few places), but…into the ether it went. I’ll listen to that podcast mini series.
One thing I wanted to add is that I grew up in Atlanta, so I agree that plenty of folks should leave NYC and LA. However, there’s plenty of folks there necessary for the city to function, and I think that legislation is probably the only viable way that things will change for them, since lower-income folks are just being squeezed from all directions, given how much of a commodity real estate has gotten since the last big housing bubble burst.
Again though, I’m not an economist, so my ideas are certainly not immediately viable, and I agree there’s little chance of “solving” most of this under the best of circumstances. I just think there’s too much greed, especially related to housing, that can be improved. We’re a rich enough nation that we can do better. Also I just wanted to be sure to give your nice comment a thoughtful reply, because the internet is too toxic in general, and we need to try to make it otherwise. Have a nice end of the year
I live comfortably in a 2 story, 3 bedroom that I own and I’m able to put enough into savings each month that I’m easily able to afford any emergencies that come up.
Looking at local prices, I would not be able to rent of a much smaller unit where I live.
The actual ‘need’ for rent could be easily covered by people renting out their basement suite or having a boarder. There’s no benefit to society for allowing people to purchase properties they don’t live on just to profit off someone else’s rent.
I’d be willing to bet you bought at least a few years ago, and probably couldn’t afford the house you’re in now if you had to buy it today. I’m in a similar spot. It definitely feels wrong. The rapid increase in prices in the housing market in the past few years is ridiculous. I think it’s a lot more complicated than “landlords” though. I think a lot of the issue stems from restrictive zoning that prevents the construction of small homes in dense neighborhoods. A lack of respect for trade jobs also contributes, with massive shortages of skilled construction workers driving prices up.
Granted, I live in a relatively affordable smaller city. If I were in a city with a lot of real estate speculation like LA or Toronto I might feel differently. But speculators aren’t landlords. I have a much bigger beef with a speculator who let’s a house sit empty than a landlord renting out apartments.
Risk doesn’ t create value, what the heck are you talking about? I’ll spin a revolver with a single round in it and fire, what fictional wizard signs my check?
Renters are the real ones at risk, being forced by an entire class of sociopaths acting in solidarity to parisitize their wealth. In a disagreement, landlords can commit asymmetric harm with impunity because legal defenses require capital, which the renting class lacks by definition.
Your “good” landlord only appears to be so because of the ubiquity of normal landlords. The handyman needed to help you that day cost pennies compared to what rent seekers steal, thats why they call it “passive income.” In this case, you are describing work performed by a property manager, not a landlord, that created value to you. The landlord performed that managerial labor, and still pocketed disproportionally more value than he provided, because his earnings come from ownership, not from labor.
If its cheaper to rent than buy, why do landlords do it? Out of the goodness of their shiny little hearts? Thank you my lord for saving me from myself.
Landlords do not create housing. They destroy housing by turning what would have been a sold unit of housing into a rented unit of housing. They are directly incentivised to keep housing scarce.
That’s the ideal solution, but not the only solution.
So there should be no land ownership
There already isn’t, in absolute terms. A government can reposses any piece of land within its territory (maybe with the exception of embassies) at its own discretion.
Another simple solution is that the taxation on any land should be proportional to its market value deduced from a “usefulness” score, i.e. tilled land used for farming is very useful, therefore shouldn’t have increased taxes. Empty houses aren’t useful at all, therefore high taxes are justified. This is a developed application of Land Value Taxation.
It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.
So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?
And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?
It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.
Even if you argue for the ownership of a house, the land it sits on is ultimately owned by the state, so I don’t think that’s a very productive topic…
So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?
Not necessarily for free (although, as I stated, that would be ideal), but certainly not for profit.
And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?
This is an arguement for government owned housing because no individual is going to buy a property, do everything that is necessary to maintain and run that property for zero gain. How would that person live making no money?
That’s the idea! They can just break even, if they bought a place but aren’t currently living there. Otherwise, leave the property on the market so someone who actually needs it can get it.
You do come off as a bit obtuse, and I think that what Gabu is trying to say is that only people should own residential property, not banks/hedge funds/corporations/etc. People should own their residence, and it shouldn’t cost half their income. Renting can be beneficial, but it shouldn’t cost as much as getting your own mortgage.
A cap on how many properties each person can own would help; no one needs more than a few properties. If residences aren’t treated like an investment, prices would be more reasonable, and the barrier to entry lower. Then you could actually move place-to-place every 3 years, sell, and not get robbed by realtors who don’t deserve the huge commissions they get on the already over-inflated housing prices.
Did you know that in some places, a seller’s agent won’t even talk to you unless you have a buyer’s agent?
Anyway, small landlords aren’t really the problem. It’s the big boys who own whole buildings and neighborhoods, driving up prices just because they can. Stricter regulations need to be put into place to make those firms go back to gambling over their shitty stocks and not the roofs over our heads.
Well that’s not what he said. He said it shouldn’t be allowed to make a profit. He did not specify whether the owner is a major corporation or an individual.
First of all: “Just asking questions” is not an argument. It’s disingenuous at best and done by people who have a strong opinion on a subject but can’t articulate why. They feel they are correct and think they are cleverly avoiding having to actually defend their stance by never actually stating what it is.
And why shouldn’t they buy the house?
Because the necessities of survival shouldn’t be a source of profit. Companies shouldn’t be allowed to purchase all the air or water and force you to buy it from them for inflated prices because “what else are you going to do?” In the same why they shouldn’t be allowed to buy all the property and force you to rent from them because “where else are you going to stay?”
What’s the limit on houses?
That’s exactly the problem. There should be a limit on houses, and we’re seeing the consequences of a limit not existing. People are calling for a limit to exist.
Personally I think it should be illegal to rent out a property you don’t live on, and any property you own beyond the first should be taxed at a much higher rate.
First of all, maybe I’m not trying to argue, maybe I’m asking questions because I want to understand the other person’s side and making sure that person has fully thought through his position. How can I agree or disagree if I don’t even know the rules. On this topic people seem to be pretty certain that ALL landlords are basically stealing a living from their renters. I don’t care for arguments that place individuals in the same category as large corporations. There are heroes and villains in every industry. Landlording is no exception.
I did not set up the rules, I’m just following them. In the united states this is unfortunately how it functions.
First of all, people are able to state their opinions on a subject without first having to ask questions like:
So they should buy the house, pay the mortgage and let you stay there for free?
This is exactly what I mean by “just asking questions” being disingenuous at best. That’s not a questions someone asks a person if they are legitimately “wanting to understand the other person’s side”.
How can I agree or disagree if I don’t even know the rules
What rules? They made pretty clear statements about their position (unlike you). You can ask them clarifying questions and state your own position on the subject at the same time.
I don’t care for arguments that place individuals in the same category as large corporations.
It’s possible for something to be wrong for both individuals and corporations to take part in. If someone is saying “slavery is bad” I don’t need to hear some bullshit “Corporations who use slave labour are worse than individuals who use slave labour. Leave the individuals alone!” Both are bad. Corporations are worse, yes, but that doesn’t give individuals a free pass. Both need to be stopped.
There are heroes and villains in every industry.
Yes, and the role of government should be to step in and stop the villains.
I did not set up the rules, I’m just following them. In the united states this is unfortunately how it functions.
That is exactly the point. This is how it functions and it shouldn’t be. That doesn’t change by people shrugging their shoulders and saying “it is what it is.” It changes by people making noise about it until the rules are changed.
I personally believe that asking the details of why a person believes something is EXACTLY the right way to have a discussion because if you just scream at the person and say you’re wrong, that person will just dig in and solidify his opinion.
This is why I’m not going to argue with you anymore because I’m pretty sure you’re not going to change your mind and I’m sorry I don’t live up to your expectations of not grabbing my sign and marching in front of congress.
I have never seen a successful positive movement toward the kind of government you portray. Instead what I have seen is my dollar going for positive change and corporation’s billions of dollars going the other way. Given the fact that as a society we choose the worst examples of humanity to govern us, I don’t see this changing. I only have one life and I’m just not heroic enough to donate it to one of the many causes that need it. I don’t break the rules that I follow and I try not to make things worse, but I would be curious to know what arm waving you’ve done recently to change this predicament. Did you write your congressman? Get interviewed on TV? Write a book pointing out the tragedy? What exactly have you done and has it made a difference?
I personally believe that asking the details of why a person believes something is EXACTLY the right way to have a discussion because if you just scream at the person and say you’re wrong, that person will just dig in and solidify his opinion.
Asking someone
So they should buy the house, pay the mortgage and let you stay there for free?
Is not an attempt at understanding why a person believes something. It’s the passive aggressive equivalent to yelling at them that they’re wrong.
I am not surprised in the slightest that when pushed to actually define and defend your stance you respond with
At the age of 18 I got my first job working my way through college pushing 1200 packages an hour in a UPS warehouse. Back then $20 was a lot of money to me. That would fill my gas tank for a week. But I pulled that out of every paycheck and I continued doing that from every paycheck I got after college and beyond, increasing it to 30% of my professional income over time.
After 30 years of working to make someone else rich I looked at my now substantial investments, both personal and 401k and realized, Holy crap, these are just numbers in a computer. What would I actually do if I looked at those investments and one day the number was zero? I mean, in one form or another they were really all just stocks. If the market crashed I could lose a lot and have to build back up. What if the bank collapsed? Theoretically, government insurance might cover me, but I don’t know what the fine print says. What if I didn’t qualify for some reason? Even if I did, how long would it take? What if I was hacked and from the bank’s perspective, I had simply withdrawn the money?
My answer was to diversify. If I bought a house and everything turned to shit, at least I could LIVE in the house. So me and a buddy each put in $50k to buy a gutted house near the beach. Then we foolishly spent 3 years of our lives working nights and weekends, putting in a kitchen, floors, paint, doors, plumbing, tearing out walls to fix termite damage. We paid to have the wiring brought up to code. We made it nice and spent $68k.
We got a great renter in there for market price and then Covid hit. I talked to my partner and we decided that if she couldn’t pay, she was going to stay rent free. Fortunately, she never missed a payment but it didn’t feel right to raise the rent and price her out of the house. Rents in the area are $2500/ month. She’s paying $1900/ month. If you do the math you know we are essentially giving up $600/ month of potential income.
Now let’s see how I’m stealing this income. Last year was just great. A tornado hit the neighborhood and damaged the roof, the fence, some of the exterior and left debris, like someone’s front door, in the yard that had to be hauled away. Total cost including the roof $13k. We got lucky.
So, $1900 rent x 12 months is $22800/ year. Subtract $13k plus $3600 for property taxes, plus $300 for inside pest control, plus $300 for termite treatment plus $600 for incidental things that needed fixing. That’s $5k. Divide that by 2 because I only own half and I raked in a whopping $2500, on which i get to pay income taxes. Let’s not forget the time it takes to contact 3 roofers to get quotes, meet them to pick colors and sign the contract, clean up the yard, write up the lease and bring it to her to sign, arrange for any and all repairs or emergencies and the myriad of other things that crop up over the years.
And now that I’ve found out how I’ve been robbing my renter by just sitting around collecting money I don’t deserve, I have to call my buddy and tell him we have to sell the house for zero profit and of course, kick the renter out so she can… I don’t know… spend $600/ month more finding another place to live.
Like I said, I don’t make these rules. I paid rent too and now a mortgage. Would I like to live in a country that didn’t allow corporations to buy up everything and jack up the price of those living there? Hell yeah.
So I vote. What else can I do? I didn’t crush anyone under my heels to get what i have. I literally saved the money i made. And if I want to protect everything I’ve spent my whole life to create I can put it in… what… diamonds? Like those don’t have blood on them. Make my own business. Isn’t that like joining the enemy. I mean the goal would be to grow, right? Boats, cars? What is socially acceptable?
I’m sorry but I’m just not this horrible robber depicted in the meme and I’m not apologizing.
“I bought a limited resource people require for survival, what should I have done?”
Not do that. I have plenty of investments, none of them are houses. This feigned ignorance of “what else am I allowed to invest in?” Doesn’t work. Go talk to an advisor, they’ll provide you with plenty of options.
Why do you people have to be so hateful, “feigned ignorance”. It’s not feigned ignorance it’s the fact that any tangible investment will upset SOMEONE.
Again, all of those are in essence stocks that can be lost in a crash, if someone hacks my account, the bank fails, etc. When it comes down to it, those are just numbers in an account that one day could go to zero. One could argue that is not likely to happen, but if it did, what recourse would I actually have?
I retired at 52. I don’t need financial advice. My point was that I wanted a tangible asset. If I choose diamonds or gold someone here would get just as upset that those were essentially covered with blood and they are. I wouldn’t want to do cars because I don’t consider it wise, don’t have storage, don’t want to pay the insurance, etc. Real estate is an obvious choice. It makes a very good investment, but clearly in this thread it’s evil.
So you’re well aware that alternative investment options exist and all this “what am I to do? Rental housing is the only thing to invest in” is just nonsense.
clearly in this thread it’s evil
Yup. Just like if someone invested in diamonds or gold, people upset about it wouldn’t give them a pass if they said “I just wanted a tangible investment”.
You complained about spending 30 years making someone else rich, and now you’re retired off the back of your renter making you rich. Your example of a “bad year” was $2500 profit after paying for repairs from a tornado, for a property you don’t need or use.
Some people don’t want to be locked down to one place for long. When I was in my twenties I moved to a different town every year when my lease was up just to see if I would like it better somewhere else. Or I’d get a raise and be able to afford a better place the next year. For people that want relatively short term housing, renting is a far superior option.
If I took out a mortgage on a place and then sold it a year later, I’d have almost no equity since you pay almost all interest in the front part of the loan.
Pizza delivery people have to get out of their car in any weather. Cops only have to get out of their car if they feel like it. Also, cops don’t have to buy their own gas.
IDF destroyed Israeli homes (with Israelis inside) when Hamas raided them on Oct 7, and now they are indiscriminantly bombing Gaza, including where the hostages might be. I don’t see the logic at all. It seems like they don’t care about Palestinian OR Israeli civilians.
EDIT: I just stumbled upon this video, which shows Israeli police arresting a (black) Israeli soldier for trying to cross the street. It seems racist af. I really can’t figure out who they are protecting.
That’s what bothers me most: the incidence shows how Israeli military treats civilians in general but at least where I live, media doesn’t talk about the implications. The coverage is more critical than at the beginning of the war but they still refuse to call it a genocide.
It’s a military force full of conscripts it’s not a surprise they operate at an amateur level. These guys aren’t trained to rescue hostages they are only trained to shoot. There is a reason why most countries have gotten rid of conscription. Conscripted soldiers are nowhere near the level of a vetted and trained volunteer
Take a look at this. It’s a bunch of testimoniess from IDF soldiers about what happened when theie military ran similar operations in 2014. Looks like this is generally how the IDF operates.
Can’t speak for americans but in the UK it is customary to measure things in number of bananas and count things in tins of baked beans. Dont get me started on fractions.
It’s been tough switching from managing data and processes to managing people. But I make a LOT more money. It’s also nice not having to watch someone else make poor decisions all the time, but I guess now everyone else is now watching me make the poor decisions! 🤦♂️
Great. More responsibility and being the scapegoat for everything bad coming from the ones under you.
I’d need 150% of my salary to start thinking about doing that.
Yeah… I feel like I contributed so much more before but managing people, but this is where the money is sadly. I went from supply chain/purchasing/logistics manager to operations manager. I used to be a one man team and single handedly saved maybe $200k this year so far, and took our aged inventory from about $1M to basically nothing, all of our KPIs are primo. This is a company that pulls $10M/yr in revenue… small company.
I got rewarded with spending half my time babysitting the warehouse team, getting reamed by my boss when they’re not getting through things fast enough, and fixing their mistakes and bandaiding bad processes. But I got a 30% raise so I guess it’s worth it? I could be doing so much more.
It doesn’t necessarily matter that you make poor decisions. That’s all of us. At some point. It matters that you take ownership of it and don’t pawn it off on somebody else. And, that you make things right when necessary. Competence is important but integrity is way more important.
Whew, you’d better stay away from “one in a million” by guns n roses then!
Of course, the two songs are very different, but if you have ever only heard the “radio” version of OIAM (which still doesn’t get played on radio) and then hear the original, you’ll shit yourself.
They’re completely opposite in intent and usage. Dire straits are poking fun at an idiot saying the things in the song. Axl Rose was saying what he thought in the worst possible way. Dude is batshit, and a homophobe. Well, was for sure, I guess even someone that much of an asshole could have changed by now.
Kinda sucks because the song itself isn’t bad, just really nasty. Like, as a slice of life from a person that’s full of anger and hate and wants to run away from his self generated fears, the song is successful. It paints a realistic picture of not only the person that wrote it, but of people that think like that. It’s just really hard to listen to because of that accurate slice of hate.
My understanding was both Mark Knophler and Axl Rose were doing the same thing, writing a song from a dumbass bigots perspective, it’s just that people hate Axl and automatically ascribe the worst motives (despite a literal black man playing guitar on that GNR track).
Ehhh, Axl has gone on record about when and why he wrote the song, and why he used the words he used. He outright said that he didn’t like gay people unless it was lesbians he could watch because that’s his fetish. He did say that he was only using the slurs to point at part of the groups, but the way he said it was still both racist and homophobic.
Slash has said on the record that he objected to the song, and wished it hadn’t been made, but that (at the time) the band didn’t interfere with each other creatively. He also didn’t play much on the track, btw. Afaik, Axl wrote all the acoustic guitar on it, because he’s stated on the record that he sucked at the guitar and was essentially just strumming two strings. I’ve never seen any breakdown of who played what on the recording though, so I can’t say who is playing on the track.
However, Slash has also said that while he didn’t like the song, he wasn’t pissed at Axl because of it. But you can’t use that as a guideline for the song being acceptable or not because a shit ton of other musicians were quite vocal in their objections at the time (including the band that toured with them during that era, Living Color).
It isn’t anyone ascribing anything to him (axl), it’s what he himself has said in interviews, and on stage.
In later interviews he’s outright said that he as a person was a rage junkie (abridged version lol, he did a lot of interviews), and absolutely had hatred for gay people as a whole. He’s given multiple reasons for that, and none of those are self-contradictory. However, none of them excuse his behavior towards gay people.
As far as other things he’s said about his racial beliefs, I don’t know if it’s fair to say he’s full on racist, as in hating black people or any given ethnic group. What is fair to say is that his excuses for use the n slur in the song amount to stereotyping and was certainly intended to attack at least the black people he was stereotyping.
Now, I’m pulling this from having been a fan of the band since they broke into national awareness, and all the stuff I read and heard along the way. But, the interviews are usually available online. I know the Rolling Stone magazine stuff is. There’s still concert ,footage of him from the era ranting about being accused of bigotry, though that was pretty much just him saying “fuck you” to anyone that didn’t like him.
Very specifically, Axl has said that he wrote it from his own perspective, talking about his experiences and his anger. The “one in a million” sections of the song are him repeating something said to him in real life because he was a raging asshole (again, he’s said that on record).
So, the worst motives being ascribed to him aren’t ONLY because he isn’t well liked. Hell, I’ve still got the vinyl of Lies, and have the rest of the pre-breakup albums on at least CD, if not multiple formats. I don’t hate Axl, much less the band.
Knopfler has also been open about how his song was written, and it’s intent. It was, just as you said, holding up the kind of speech and behavior in the song to ridicule. That’s been his public stance on the song from the beginning, and it has never changed afaik. The lyrics support that stance. He’s told the story of writing down many of the lines from the song after hearing them in person by another person. The lyrics are saying that the musicians on stage and screen are the yo-yos playing Hawaiian music, so the f slur in the song would be directed at Knopfler himself even if he was writing from his own perspective.
I know, that’s a lot of words for a decades old song lol. But anyone that was a fan of the band back then had to negotiate the matter. My best friend still hates Axl because of the song. The debate about exactly how bad the lyrics are was a nearly daily thing for a few weeks after the EP came out. I never hated Axl, I don’t waste my hate on strangers very often (and never on strangers that can’t really do anything with whatever bullshit they spew). But I get why people do.
This comment is NOT AT ALL intended to excuse anything that Axl has said, sung, or thought. But in the late 80s and early 90s it wasn’t just the cultural norm to saw insanely offensive things about gay people, but they were actively demonized in huge swaths of daily life. I can not imagine how it felt being gay, bi, or otherwise queer but I have to imagine it was petrifying. If something happened to you, the cops were unlikely to investigate. Songs, TV, even news papers made fun of and offensive comments about gay people.
The cultural shift that’s happened over the past 40 years is pretty incredible. Not saying we don’t have further to go, not saying things are good now, just noting where we’ve come from just in my own lifetime. Axl might still be a POS, and he’s absolutely out of his mind. But shit like that was so pervasive.
Absolutely! It wasn’t at all unusual, even for other slurs. But gay slurs were outright common. Ffs, even in 91, my high school had a gym class playing “smear the queer” and that was the gym teacher calling it that. It wasn’t a secret, it was right out in the open. And that really was about the mildest kind of bullshit gay people had to deal with.
My best friend in high school was/is gay (still my best friend, still gay lol). He was mean as a snake, so nobody was dumb enough to directly attack him, but it was a real fear that it could happen, or that it could end up a planned attack by enough people when he was alone that his willingness to fuck people up wasn’t a deterrent.
By about 93, I had been going to the closer gay bars with him, and ended up bouncing at a few when I moved to the city for a while. It could get ugly fast at those places. Here in the south, the acceptance of gay folks still isn’t where it should be, but back then, we would have assholes showing up specifically to beat gay people. I’ve got a few scars from trying to keep our patrons safe and alive. All of us at the big drag club ended up with scars.
The sheer ease with which some of those sociopaths would drive into the city specifically to try and hurt someone they didn’t even know was disgusting. The police response was utter bullshit. A couple of times, people damn near died while we tried to keep things under control because the cops didn’t care. At least the ambulance people were fast, those folks were incredible, and always got there before the cops, despite being located farther away.
It’s one of the reasons I can’t bring myself to hate Axl. I’m amazed I didn’t end up thinking that way too, if I’m being honest. My family were mostly cool with gaydom (that’s an actual thing my aunt said once), but they still looked at it with pity and condescension. “Those poor people”. I have to laugh at it a little or it would make me sad.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.