• corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    So the meat of the article is splitting hairs over the fact that housing isn’t an acute problem and thus not a crisis? Is this the kind of “I’m so smart” bullshit the Walrus wants to drop on a society that can’t pluralize collection nouns properly and that also uses “literally” in a figurative sense?

    We have people harming women with legislation entitled “protection of women and child act”. We have the environmental protection agency allowing aggressively carcinogenic fuel additives into our lakes and rivers.

    We’re not ready for the thinking required to recognize some Walrus author’s obvious intellect, and give him the parade he feels he deserves; or at least some polite applause and a chorus of “hear hear, old chum” around our ornate tobacco pipes in the mahogany-paneled study.

    Honestly, Walrus, what the fuck.

    • fresh@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yes, I was going to comment the same thing! By saying “there is no housing crisis“, it implies that there is less of a problem, not more of one. It’s provocative, but misleading. At the very least, the title should’ve been changed to say “It’s not a housing crisis, but a broken housing system“.

      But honestly, is that even a useful point to make at length? Everyone knows it’s broken beyond just the short term!

    • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      housing isn’t an acute problem and thus not a crisis

      Who’s to say that is the one true definition of crisis anyway? People call “crisis” anything they feel highly impacting, no matter the acuteness.