Some real estate dickhead just rang my mobile (which is not advertised anywhere) saying they were “just in the area” and wanted to do an appraisal on a house we own in <suburb name>.

It’s an agency we don’t use for any purpose, have never used for any purpose, and have never approached for any reason.

Is there some sort of legal issue with some smarmy sales knob looking up property owner details and cold calling them?

Makes me feel all gross that their grubby mitts are pawing through my deets somewhere in the hope of being able to stick a tongue up my bum and get a taste of some back door cash.

  • Nakoichi [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    You literally cannot conceive of a reality wherein a home does not have to be rented from a parasitic landlord?

    You cannot conceive a future wherein you don’t have to afford a home?

    Also Mao is a beloved figure for many because he lifted millions out of poverty and ended the brutal feudal system that preceeded him. He also famously said “no investigation no right to speak” and you clearly need to do some investigating.

    • Nath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I can’t conceive the land not belonging to someone, no. That’s not how our society works. And before you break that, I’d want to take a good look at what you’d replace it with. Because the objective facts are that this system is the best thing tried so far.

      Mao did none of those things. He was a destroyer, not a builder. He dabbled and experimented through the Cultural Revolution, and was directly responsible for millions of deaths as a result. After killing everyone with an education he could get his hands on, he used Soviet know-how to start moving from an agricultral to Industrial nation. Forgetting in the process that those agricultural practices were feedign his population. Whoops!

      I have no idea why he has such a following. Is it because he tore the whole system down? Is it because he wrote some essays? China didn’t start developing until years after Mao left office.

      • Nakoichi [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Wow an aussie not respecting indigenous land stewardship practices? I’m shocked.

        Man go fuck off back to wherever your european colonizer ancestors came from.

        You honestly better hope we never meet. Because if we do it’s adventure-time

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I can’t conceive the land not belonging to someone, no.

        This is just basically like saying “I do not know anything about history”.

        The land used to be called “the commons”. It was owned by nobody. It was everyone’s land.

        It was taken over by a system called Enclosure, in which the common land was stolen from the people and “Enclosed” by a small few people who took over.

        I have no idea why he has such a following. Is it because he tore the whole system down? Is it because he wrote some essays? China didn’t start developing until years after Mao left office.

        The average lifespan in China was 33 when Mao launched the revolution. It rose DURING the revolution, during civil war conditions simulteously alongside a literal fascist exterminationist invasion by the Japanese. The life expectancy during this period rose despite war because the communists were improving the conditions of the people immediately.

        The life expectancy upon Mao’s death was 64. It rose further after his death.

        Life expectancy does not rise when people’s lives are getting worse. He certainly made some mistakes, but you are making an utterly fatal mistake here by looking at “x number of people died” in isolation instead of looking at it in comparison to what existed before.

        And if none of that is enough for you I leave you with this:

        It has been estimated that, by the 19th century, 40–50% of all Chinese women may have had bound feet, rising to almost 100% in upper-class Han Chinese women.

        The ending of footbinding alone justifies Mao as a positive thing all by itself. Without ever having to discuss literally anything else. It was a horrific practice. There’s plenty more to use as justification, but footbinding by itself is singlehandedly enough to justify it all.

        • Nakoichi [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Everyone the Maoist revolution killed fucking deserved it. And I am not talking about the environmental causes of the famine that coincidentally happened afterward. But everyone the Maoist revolutionaries killed fucking deserved it.