All I have to say is good. Fuck this woman (not literally she doesn’t need to get laid). I drink and have been drunk many a times, never in that stupid inebriated state have I EVER thought to murder someone or try and cause them harm. Do dumb shit? Absolutely I’m a drunk fool so you give me a bucket, a empty street and a fuel and lighter I’m likely gonna kick a flaming bucket down the street. But to hurt someone or seek a fight etc? No. I’m still able to keep my morality and decision-making under control over those things.
So no judgement but for me: drunk fool doing dumb shit ≠ decision making under control. To each there own but shit can spiral out of control rapidly. Be safe out there.
If you do dumb shit while drunk, you still chose to get drunk. Your fully-aware mind is perfectly capable of grasping that you getting drunk will make you do dumb shit, so imo you’re fully responsible for your actions while drunk.
I mean I suppose but when I drink now I rarely get to a state I cannot retain reason and think somewhat critical. This was mostly when I was in my 20s. But I would argue being drunk does NOT at all absolve me or anyone else from consequences of actions we made… even impared. That’s why I agree with this woman’s sentences. She absolutely deserved what she got.
Oh for sure I could. The difference between myself and my friends doing this drunkenly is it was a dead end street with only his house and no vehicle traffic. And while Matt did slightly catch fire, we wouldn’t have purposely hurt someone. The lady in the article was said to get increasingly unruly and belligerent. Not how I operate.
Now say we’d caused a house fire or any fire for that matter I’d have fully accepted any punishment for the severity of whatever had happened. Just who I am. I fuck up I own it. Even drunk me knows not to punch someone or harm someone unless I’m in danger.
My first girlfriend in highschool had severe anxiety and was so incredibly quiet and shy. It was so tough cuz she was a genuinely sweet and caring person once she opened up to you. I was extremely surprised to learn her family was nothing like that when I met them. Until I met her dad, and he kept calling her an idiot, and stupid, and useless. Then I understood why she never wanted to say anything. Every time she opened her mouth she was criticized by her dad. This attitude towards your own kids is insanely damaging.
My anxiety also came from living with an abusive father. It sucks always second guessing yourself and never feeling safe and secure because your baseline is abuse.
EMDR helped me. I hope your ex found or finds some healing.
Honestly, I think that type of abuse is the worst because it cuts way deeper and leaves a permanent mark. I was yelled at (a lot), physically abused, and sexually abused, but I was always encouraged and supported. (Weird, I know. No, I’m not getting into it.). Because of the verbal support I received from my mother I was confident enough to stand up to my sexual and physical abusers even though she had not been able to as a child. I was also strong enough to break away from them and take on life solo after completely cutting them all off from my life (my mother had already passed away).
If you believe in yourself, you can fight. If you don’t, you might just sit there and take it. Psychological abuse is the cruelest and most damaging.
It’s very difficult to notice that it’s happening to you sometimes.
It wasn’t until my mid twenties that I noticed every single thing I say my mother seems to instantly try to take the opposite side and tell me I’m wrong, purely because it’s in her nature.
That level of negativity combined with a hair trigger for screaming, and she wonders why I don’t talk to her about absolutely anything 🤷♂️
Yeah, I think an important thing parents need to do (apart from tearing down their kids for no reason) is differentiate DOING something dumb versus BEING dumb.
A comment my dad made long ago when I was young kinda stuck with me “For a kid who’s really smart you sure do some really dumb shit sometimes”
I’ve tried to phrase things like that to my kids, not “you dumbass why did you do that?” but more along “you’re smart enough to know you shouldn’t do that, so why did you?”
I don’t have a better solution, but “you’re smart enough to know you shouldn’t do that, so why did you?” feels a lot like the “you’re smart but you don’t apply yourself” I got a lot as a kid that always made me feel inadequate.
I fucked up sometimes, I didn’t do it on purpose and asking me why I did it as if I consciously made a decision to be wrong on purpose and wanting an explanation is basically asking me to either lie or say “i don’t know” which was never the “right answer.”
More about analysing the thinking that led to the situation. In most cases it’s things that they know or were told not to do but guy caught up in the moment
Or you could use positive reinforcement instead of belittling your kids. You can explain, why stuff they did was wrong without calling them dumb. They are kids after all, they don’t know stuff, have a lot to learn and it is hard for them to completely grasp the consequences of their actions.
Just read the other comment strain, where people argue, that exactly this parenting fucked them up. Positive reinforcement is the go to parenting style.
My best friend has a young daughter with a genetic disability that will dramatically affect her for her entire life. She had a stroke a few months ago that scared the whole family, thinking there would be more complications to her condition. Furthermore, my friend works part-time and her husband works full-time so that she can be there for her daughter and help her grow up.
Texas Medicaid kicked her off during this round of purges, and my friend has spent countless hours trying to get her daughter reinstated (one person from TXMED finally said it was a data-entry error that caused the loss in coverage).
Fuck Republicans and everyone who voted for them. Society is about caring for the most vulnerable, and they’ve broken the social contact.
And just about every single one was a family member. My ex-wife it was the neighbor kid. But outside of that all immediate family or in one instance, a cousin.
People can interpret it how they want and I was aware people would read into it. People read into everything though.
My interpretation is that growing up in an abusive environment I resonated with other damaged people and that me identifying with protecting my mom from my abusive dad rather than trying to be like my dad, helped other damaged people feel safe around me (generally, when I wasn’t having a meltdown from my own trauma anyway).
And since my first girlfriend had nightmares from her abuse I learned young to be supportive of people with sexual trauma.
Child sexual abuse is more than just rape by an adult. But many people only consider this form of sexual abuse and that's why they think the number is high.
But child sexual abuse also includes fondling, exhibition, kissing, forced nudity, etc. Basically anything that leads to sexual gratification. And it also includes if these things are done by older children. I think if the age difference is greater than 2 years it's considered csa even if it was done with "consent" aka it's assumed the power/authority difference doesn't allow for consent to exist. Which seems like a fair assessment.
If you take all of that into consideration, the number is totally plausible.
There’s this short series on Netflix called Unbelievable. I recommend every single person watch it, but especially anyone who wants / needs to know exactly what it’s like to try to report sexual abuse to the police. It’s dramatized but it’s based on a true story of an 18 year old girl who was sexually assaulted by someone who broke into her apartment in the middle of the night. From the minute she reported it she was treated like a criminal. She was interrogated by cops who criticized her from the second they sat down. She ended up being charged and convicted of making false police reports. She was in some kind of group home at the time. She got in trouble, lost her friends, home, supports, and job. Several years later, the suspect assaulted another woman and was finally caught. I can’t imagine the relief and vindication she must have felt. Except that the cops literally allowed the suspect to assault at least one more person before doing anything about it. It’s a good thing it happened in another state because if it had happened in the same place they probably would have just arrested the second victim too.
But the depiction in the show is true to life. It’s for everyone who has ever said “well if it actually happened then why didn’t they just call the cops?”
The amount of girls who are sexually abused is astounding. Honestly haven gotten my daughters to 12 and almost 14 without ever having had to experience this (unless they’ve misled us which I do not believe they would) is among my most proud accomplishments as a parent.
The good guys with guns were abiding by Washington DC laws and not possessing firearms. The criminals not following the law had them. Sounds like they were bold in their actions assuming their victims would be unable to defend themselves
It looks to me like DC still goes out of its way to make even buying a weapon a pain in the ass:
Application for Firearms Registration Certificate (PD-219)
Firearms Registration Application Statement of Eligibility
Firearms Certificate Information Update Form (Please complete this form and submit it to the Firearms Registration Branch via email at [email protected])
Fingerprint Fee Notice and Worksheet
Firearm Application Addendum-Used Firearm Explanation
Take Online Firearms Safety Training Course (30 Minutes) and bring certificate to initial visit Copy of your Government Issued Identification, i.e., Driver’s License, Military ID (original will be verified again in person)
I guess ATF-4473 doesn't do enough tracking/registering for their liking.
And that's before you go beg the cops to be allowed to legally carry a weapon to defend yourself.
omg! a 30 minute course. paperwork! Fees!!! Well that is just to much for a desperately needed implement to guarantee my safety that not having will result in your being dead or so I seem to hear from the folk who can't abide restrictions on it.
Like I’ve definitely raised my voice with my kids but couldn’t imagine a world where I ever would call them stupid. That is just trash parenting and amazing that anyone would do that to their offspring.
Ya, I think the study is mostly aimed at the negativity and denigration of the child. While I almost never raise my voice and would absolutely never call my children “stupid”, there are times where a raised voice helps break though to the child. It’s also good when you leave such a raised voice for imminent situations. For example, kid starts reaching for something dangerous, a shout will stop them cold, especially when they aren’t used to dad shouting.
Oooh yeah. My parents gently raised me and a shout from one of them was immediately understood not as them being angry but them being scared. By contrast we had some friends who were just incessantly yelled at in anger all the time. The difference was stark in how willing to accept advice, correction and trust in the experience of adults was. When you are essentially just told to obey and then yelled at you don’t really grasp the underlying principles that advantage you later because at any point that anger could just be you hitting a parent’s pet peeve. It’s also really hard to respect someone who doesn’t respect you back.
We grew up pretty damn straightlaced. By contrast our yelled at peers ended up by and large going completely off the rails once nobody was in a position to force them to obey and about half of them went really far astray.
I think it’s more yelling as habitual, not yelling when it’s sometimes necessary. No one is saying not to yell at your child to stop them from putting their hand on a stove. It’s yelling at them when they leave their legos out that is the problem.
I think it also depends highly on the circumstances, if your child did something very very bad (hit bother with a hammer say) then youd actually be derelict in your duties as a parent not to yell at them (and ground them, etc) in that situation. Going too soft on them when they really go off the rails can be just as bad or worse than being too hard on them.
Yep. If you are calm and reasonable most of the time, then yelling actually remains an effective tool rather than desensitizing the child to it and/or causing them the damage this post is about.
In my house, I’m pretty chill but we have no problem being loud when playing or joking. We have a bunch of pets too, so it can be chaotic. But when my serious big voice comes out, everything freezes and gets figured out pretty quickly. Usually. Lol.
Lol. Calm down snowflake. No reason to get offended. You have some big feelings about this but you don’t have to be a wuss about it. You can sack up and face them.
this. things like this are starting to annoy me. lets me clear. sexual abuse is worse than physical abuse which is worse than verbal abuse. The first should never happen in the least. Grabbing your childs arm roughly and yelling at them when about to touch something hot is fine and expected. Yelling at them and telling them to behave when they hit their sibling is fine.
Grabbing your childs arm roughly and yelling at them when about to touch something hot is fine and expected.
Is it really? Honestly I’d rather a child touch something hot and learn the lesson that it is unsafe than potentially learn the lesson the people charged with taking care of them are unsafe. I mean, I remember burning a finger on the stove when I was little. It sucked but I was and am fine. I was lightly verbally abused by my Dad exactly once (he apologized after), and it was much, much worse. I was verbally abused by teachers and peers, and it was much, much worse.
[edit: I retract the sentence “Honestly I’d rather a child touch something hot and learn the lesson that it is unsafe than potentially learn the lesson the people charged with taking care of them are unsafe.” It was poorly thought through and poorly worded. To be clear, I do not condone intentionally allowing a child to touch a stove to teach them it is dangerous. I also do not think that the threat of a child touching a stove justifies physically and verbally abusing a child, as OP said.]
using equivalency phrases on things that are very much not equivalent. Also scientific studies are great in the hard sciences but in the social sciences become very iffy. Doing some correlation on questionaires is not equivalent to measuring small changes in a large structure to measure gravitational effects.
Doing some correlation on questionaires is not equivalent to measuring small changes in a large structure to measure gravitational effects.
Where did anyone say this? You’re trying to sound knowledgeable about science, but all you’re doing is making up strawmen to argue against over and over
its a reply to iamthetots comment about scientific studies. one thing that is frustrating with federation is sometimes folks don't see all the people or parts of a convo
explain strawman argument and how my conversation fits into it because I do not believe my conversation has been one. Or not if you don't really believe its a strawman argument. Make some other comment if thats the case.
You’re completely misunderstanding everything written here. You created arguments that don’t exist in this article, and do not understand the definition of verbal or physical abuse, because the examples you give are not that
except that there is no hard line of where something moves into abuse. In the end my comment was that yes these are not equivalent. There is no level of sexual contact that is ok but there is a level of physicality and yelling that is ok as long as it is not type of constant thing. and physicality is way less ok than yelling and only should be used in rare, usually dangerous situations.
Ok, but again, you’re arguing against a strawman. Nothing you’re saying here is relevant to what I said about you misunderstanding the definitions of physical and verbal/emotional abuse as evidenced by you standing up and knocking down examples that are clearly not abuse
yeah but you are taking a whole conversation and not looking at my initial comment. you just don't get the jist of the whole and where it goes. you concentrate on the last thing said and take no context at all.
So where is the effin straw man in that. The news item that references the study equates sexual, physical, and verbal abuse as equivalent and my comment is woa. They are so not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Grabbing your childs arm roughly and yelling at them when about to touch something hot is fine and expected. Yelling at them and telling them to behave when they hit their sibling is fine.
There is no one saying these things aren’t fine. They give examples of verbal/emotional abuse in the article and study and they are not this. You are creating a strawman argument no one is saying (grabbing your childs arm when about to touch something hot is fine; yelling at them and telling them to behave when they hit their sibling is fine) and using that as a reason to dismiss the conclusions of this study
My argument is about equivalency. When they make the statement they are equivalent they are saying they are equivalent. My argument is not about abuse vs not abuse. Its about equivalency. There is no level of sexual situations with a child that is not abuse. there is with verbal and physical. Again you just are throwing out context and trying to make it something its not.
A key attribute of childhood emotional abuse is the underlying adult-to-child perpetration of verbal abuse, which is characterized by shouting, yelling, denigrating the child, and verbal threats. These types of adult actions can be as damaging to a child’s development as other currently recognized and forensically established subtypes of maltreatment such as childhood physical and sexual abuse.
So you’re concluding that verbal/emotional abuse in no case can be as damaging to a child’s development as physical or sexual abuse?
Not as much as they can't be and should not be even put into the same class as actions. There is a level of vocality that is ok, there is a level of physicality that is ok, there is never a level of sexuality that is ok when talking adult to child interactions. I understand they are talking in the extreme in all cases but making these out to be the same, even if limiting to the extreme, is not ok.
This isn’t about the moral weight of one type of abuse over another, it’s only about the psychological impact of abuse on people who were abused as children. There is literally no one saying anything like “sexual abuse is the same as verbal abuse.” That is the strawman argument you created
except that when phrased that way it will in future. Your arguing in the context of this one little study and I am arguing from a moral position. I have seen it before and will see it again. This type of phrasing. Especially in the internet age of read headlines and not the details. Results in the strawman you speak of becoming reality. Equivalencies like this should never be made.
What are you even talking about… we’re literally talking about this study, you’re trying to critique it by saying verbal abuse isn’t as bad as physical or sexual abuse, meanwhile the study authors are measuring life outcomes and finding similarities between all of them. You started off trying to critique this as invalid science because it’s social science and now you’re here, saying your argument is based on morality. It’s ok to just say “I didn’t understand the study,” or “I didn’t read the study.” You don’t have to continue making stuff up based on your “gut.”
Man this is all over but lets see. I did not start off with social science critique. That came up in conversation. When a study or article is published into the public and on the internet it becomes more than an isolated thing. My comment chain started. From the begining. In talking about this is bad due to making equivalencies. Something that is a general comment and obviously had not been limited in scope the the study and nothing beyond. The article does not show the study and I don't care to read it or look into it further because again. The title. The equivalency suggested in it and the phrases used in the article. Should never be used.
The entire study is directly linked in the article! In the 3rd sentence!! You are literally forming all of these opinions based on the headline from the Guardian?! Lmfao
Even then, the headline is explicitly talking about psychological damage to victims, not a moral judgement or “which abuse is worse.” Sheesh
I actually found the link now so thank you but yeah im not arguing the study you are. Im arguing the use of language and its impropriety no matter the study finding. Hey just so you know I still find the conversation cool (if frustrating I think for both of us as we are talking from different perspectives) but the federated system after so many comments the notifications no longer get you to the place the comment is at. I had to do this one by clicking your user and looking at your last comments (pro trick for anyone using kbin website). So its possible I may not respond after this. Anyway I think I understand your stance about being against my stance but again I think your not really groking whay my point is about. this is the type of thing where I wish we were shooting the shit in a room verbally to hash out what the position really is.
“Yelling” at your child to get them to stop something, or not step into traffic, or not eat pills is one thing. That’s certainly not verbal abuse.
Shaming and berating your child for getting a C, telling them they are worthless, they are the reason Dad left, they are ugly is very different. This is clearly verbal abuse.
It’s conceivable that the sustained verbal abuse as I defined it could absolutely harm a child in a long term way, and cumulatively have an impact similar to physical abuse.
Verbal abuse when I was growing up was backed up with the threat of physical abuse. And having been bit and hit by my dad, and seeing my mom and older brother hit by my dad, those verbal threats carried a lot of weight.
I’ve walked on eggshells around my dad and every man that reminded me of him my whole life. It’s affected my relationships and made it impossible to hold down a job as most bosses have the same authoritarian streak my dad did.
So yeah, verbal abuse is damaging. Rather it’s equivalent to other forms of abuse I can’t say. But it took me 44 years and a skilled emdr therapist to finally heal enough that I don’t feel overwhelmed whenever I get emotional.
And for much of the last fifteen years I’ve been trying to find a therapist that took my trauma seriously and knew how to help me with it. So many misdiagnosis (anxiety, substance use, and depression were symptoms, but not the diagnosis that helped). Many suicide attempts. Many psych meds that didn’t help. Many many years feeling unheard by the medical establishment.
In some ways, it’s easier to have a source of trauma to point to and say “that’s the cause,” so you can address and treat it.
I was verbally abused. My inner dialogue was one of critisism, guilt and shame, that I didn’t realize until well into adulthood. I thought that was how everyone talked to themselves.
If I had been physically abused, I would have known about it. Much less insidious to the mind.
E: Was also just thinking about triggers. If you were a victim of physical trauma, your triggers might be very obvious. With verbal trauma, for me anyway, they were much less obvious. To think back, I went years and years having fight or flight reactions for no obvious reason, often manifested as anxiety or poor impulse control, wasted so many days just feeling anxious instead of working on myself. One trigger for me is loud voices. Had no idea until well into adulthood things started making sense. Damn near had a panic attack one day when a chef started yelling at the line cooks while I was waiting for my order.
absolutely. verbal abuse doesn’t leave anything physical behind, which makes it much harder to pinpoint the cause and effect. so you might be feeling depressed and anxious but not understand why because dissociative amnesia become your normal response to verbal abuse.
You miss-read (or didn’t read) the article if that’s your take-away. It’s saying the long-term effects can be roughly the same. It’s not equivocating the actions themselves.
I’m saying it’s a sensationalized headline. it’s meant to draw you in with a wild statement to make you angry and then the article is something completely different.
They’re not equivocating the malice of verbal abuse vs. sexual abuse. They are equivocating the damage this kind of abuse can do to children, which their research supports. There’s no reason to take offense as if they were taking a stand on the non-severity child sexual abuse, which they are not.
While what you and I feel doesn’t matter much, we truly need a scientific study of this. Oh, wait! That’s what this was. Please defer to objective consensus…
I cannot imagine feeling safe in a country were lethal weapons are available so freely under a society where these outliers are not only being allowed to become far more predominant, but are actively being fueled by scummy politicians. Yeah, sure, it’s not all states, the problem is it increasingly doesn’t matter as long as they are willing to do anything and everything to take control of the federal government.
While the Nazi Party had existed since 1920, it did not initially set up its own social welfare department as several other German political parties had done. Nazi ideology was in principle unfavourable to the idea of social welfare. Writing in Mein Kampf about his time spent among the poor in Vienna, Hitler expressed indignation against social welfare for helping the degenerate and the feeble. The Nazis believed that the German race had to be strengthened through a process of natural selection, which required weeding out its weakest elements, so they condemned the goals of charity and philanthropy. They opposed the extensive welfare system of the Weimar Republic for being wasteful, bureaucratic, and helping the wrong people, since it distributed welfare benefits indiscriminately without regard for race and often assisted people that the Nazis considered inferior.
Funny that you were right even though you’re trolling, isn’t it? Almost like the GOP is a fascist organization.
A couple of months ago my car got stolen. It was recovered and spent 2 months in the shop for repairs. 2 weeks later this happened.
I’m moving to the place that the Internet seems to hate: the fuckin suburbs. Where I can go to sleep without hearing my neighbors and can wake up without wondering if I’ve been robbed.
Protip: your car is for driving. Don’t sit in it parked on the side of the road even at 6:20am. And if you have to pull over, keep your doors locked and leave plenty of space to escape
I live in a suburban town that’s right next to a medium sized city and for me it’s a perfect mix. My crime rates are considerably lower, schools are good, and I’m close enough to easily enjoy everything the city has to offer. I’ve lived in more distant suburbs and in the middle of nowhere and I really didn’t care for those places. There just wasn’t enough to do.
I live in the city but on the edge of it. Very low crime, stores, theaters, nice peeps, no worries about parking… yet about 12 minutes from the city center. The city, Madison WI, is also the state capital and the University of Wisconsin campus. Concerts, football stadium, lakes, restaurants, etc.
Suburbs is where most of my experiences like yours have happened. Assaulted by crackhead, Had someone threaten to go get their gun and shoot me (thankfully to drugged out of their mind to remember their task, but it made for a real great nights sleep), Neighbors who love to mix alcohol and firearms, who the police do nothing about, etc, etc.
Up until last year I worked in the trades. Public transportation is not a reasonable option when you carry 3 tool bags. And car theft isn’t the only crime I’m trying to get away from. Two neighbors in my building got burglarized and a little girl was shot in the face not too long ago. This used to be a quiet neighborhood but in the past 5 years it’s become pretty rough.
Being carless still isn’t an option because part of the reason I’m moving is to take care of my parents and they live in the boonies.
Guess it depends on the city and how much you value your time. I live in a big city of 700k-750k people.
For the fishmonger, it’s a 10 min drive vs 1 hour bus ride.
The closest Asian grocery store is a 6 min drive or 50 min bus ride.
The bar that I go to is a 20 min drive or 1 hr 45 min bus ride.
One of my coworkers does not have a car, so instead of a 15 min drive, they commute 1 hr 35 mins each way to work. That’s a lot of hours used up on your work day.
These are all one way within the same city, so it adds up when you calculate the return time as well. Unfortunately, a lot of US cities are driving centric. Jealous of places with great public transportation.
There is something to be said about the suburb or even country life. I used to live in the city and I really liked it, but I moved for work and wanted a house rather than an apartment. I used to have bars on my back door and a front door camera. I used to hear gun fire in the middle of the night. The cops were actively in my neighborhood because one of my neighbors was a known drug dealer (they would watch his place and pick up customers). One of my neighbors regularly had EMS and the fire department because she was a coke head suicidal mess that wouldn’t seek or accept help.
Living in the country I’m further from the cultural amenities I used to have, though I still have commercial items I need. On the other hand I’ve left my shed, car and back door unlocked on accident and never had a break in. I miss living in the city, but I wouldn’t have what I have now in the city.
They’re pro-power. They want to be the ones getting the kickback from policy decisions since whenever you change policy there are winners and losers - and the ones who bet on your side tend to win (because then they make you win in other ways. Big roles for your family, giant donations to keep you in office, business deals with your family so you get more income.)
They use:
Christian Guilt (#1 - “Pro Life”, WORK your life away because it’s what you’re supposed to do/REPORT YOUR NEIGHBORS FOR NOT LIVING A GOOD CHRISTIAN LIFE)
Fear (#2 - anti-vax/conspiracy shit/racism/“guns protect people”/“strong militaries save lives”/Anti-LGBTQ/‘THEY’RE COMIN’ FOR YER GUNS) and
Hatred (#3 - OTHERING: racism/we’re better than them/don’t work with the other side they’re the enemy!/The LGBTQ are gonna rape your kids!)
Fear and hatred are extremely powerful motivating forces and Christian guilt rolls into all of it. Presidents and most politicians can’t get elected without being publicly Christian, especially in conservative majority districts. I’m atheist myself, so forgive my improper categorization of denomination, but everybody knows what I mean.
The platform is not the same as the objective. The objective is to gain personal wealth and power and build a dynasty for your family. Helping your wealthier buddies out gets you a bigger share. There are certainly people who intend to get into politics without these opinions and attitudes but it’s far from the majority.
The issue is not the number of houses, it’s who owns them. There are 16 million houses with nobody living in them because private investors are buying them purely as an investment.
I mean, The Grand Tour bought a house for $2200 in a bad area of Detroit that nobody wanted. There are a shitload available starting at around $500. Have at it.
Yes, you can buy a house for between $500-$1,000 and even cheaper but the catch is, as of 2018, you have to bring the property up to code within 6 months.
Conservative estimates three years ago was you’d need between $60,000-$100,000 to bring everything in a dilapidated house up to code
It’s not mismanagement if the explicit, if secretive, goal is to simply remove as many users of the service as possible, knowing most of them don’t easily have the means to fight back.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.