this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Chicago

1054 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to !chicago@midwest.social

where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about Chicago.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Fediverse Love

Lemmy Communities
Mastodon Servers

banner credit: tim gouw

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
pbrisgreat@midwest.social
simsymbiote@midwest.social
1
Logan Square landlord evicts tenant for flying Palestine flag (chicagoreader.com)
submitted 5 months ago by anachronist@midwest.social to c/chicago@midwest.social
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The scumbag also owns the Logan Theater.

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] seathru@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Fishman sent her maintenance man to deliver a ten-day eviction notice to her door.

Yeah, that's not legal. Hope the tenant finds a good lawyer.

Mun. Code Ch. 5-12-170: Under the 2020 revisions of the RLTO (“Fair Notice Ordinance”), Landlords must provide a tenant that is not in the eviction process: • 30 days of notice to terminate a month-to-month tenancy, decline to renew your lease or raise your rent if you have lived in your apartment for less than six months. • 60 days of notice for the same if you have lived in your apartment for more than six months but less than three years.

One of the high-points in my life was having a landlord show up with the local sheriffs to try and force an eviction that up until this point had only been verbal. I happily showed them the state's tenant laws that said "30 days after written notice is provided" and had a lawyer friend on speed dial if they had any questions. Landlord got so belligerent that the sheriffs escorted them off instead.

Also a PSA: If you rent, know your rights.

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But it's the tankies that are authoritarian...

[–] ringwraithfish@startrek.website 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If you think authoritarianism exists on a single side of the political spectrum, you're likely brainwashed.

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Is killing Nazis authoritarian? If so is every "authoritarian" measure equal?

[–] ringwraithfish@startrek.website 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

A government ordering the killing of any group (political, ethnic, etc) abandoning due process for the individuals is authoritarian.

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

That doesn't answer the question though. If a government ordered the killing of Nazis that would be very different than a government enforcing the eviction of someone displaying a flag in solidarity with people being genocided by Nazis.

You do realize how those two things are different right?

[–] ringwraithfish@startrek.website 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That doesn't answer the question though.

Yes it absolutely does. Your question was "Is killing Nazis authoritarian?"

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago

Okay so is it?

[–] ringwraithfish@startrek.website 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Those aren't mutually exclusive to define authoritarianism. I wouldn't expect someone from hexbear to come with a good faith debate though.

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Okay lets back this up a step, I made a comment pointing out the authoritarian nature of capitalism which allows the shit like what happened in the OP.

You come in trying to both sides this shit.

So are you defending landlords? Because this is obviously fucked up and the landlord in question (and all other landlords imo) should be dispossessed of their property which would be an "authoritarian" measure.

[–] ringwraithfish@startrek.website 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

authoritarian nature of capitalism

Plenty of instances of communists doing the same shit. Please refer to my original post.

Authoritarianism is not tied to political ideology. Authoritarianism takes advantage of whatever the political environment is. To think one environment doesn't allow for authoritarianism while the other does is extremely naive. This isn't a "both sides" argument, this is an argument that you incorrectly associate authoritarianism with only capitalism.

I don't know how else I can explain this to you, so this will be my last response.

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Please spare me this nonsense go read a book.

[–] ringwraithfish@startrek.website 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)
[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is liberalism at its purest: absolutely no ideology or investigation, just a smug one liner and an unchecked source. You haven't read this book at all, otherwise you wouldn't be surprised by him saying there was no massacre in tiananmen square - Vijay states the same in the book, and speculates the army didn't fire a single shot to retake it from protestors.

You are an absolutely fucking useless being who radiates pure ignorance.

[–] ringwraithfish@startrek.website 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Here comes the hexbear hoard!

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago

To do what? Read your sources for you?

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yo know even the BBC journalists that were there said there was no massacre right?

[–] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

lol, is this the comment that made some midwest.social mod go buck wild banning you from every comm they could? This is where you (checks modlog notes) were "denying a massacre"? Mod who did that: please make sure to ban not only other users who mention what the BBC says, but also that you remove any posts that link CBS News and the New York Times for their tankie propaganda massacre-denialism!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/there-was-no-tiananmen-square-massacre/

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/13/world/turmoil-china-tiananmen-crackdown-student-s-account-questioned-major-points.html

There it is, @ringwraithfish^ !

[–] ZWQbpkzl@hexbear.net 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But there's no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square, and on the way to it.

Come on.

[–] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And there were many soldiers who were also killed as well, the first of which were not even armed but were lynched. There was absolutely fighting in the streets in the surrounding area, and no one denies that people did die. But it was a mutually armed struggle, not a massacre. Calling it a massacre distorts the reality and paints a distorted picture that is beneficial to the west and especially the current anti-China narrative.

The fighting I mentioned above was also heavily instigated and pushed to happen by westerners with a vested interest in harming China who were there to rile up protesters and encourage them to do violence, but then left in helicopters when fighting did start. Some of these instigators have openly admitted this and now live happily in the US. It was not a "massacre."

Come on.

[–] ZWQbpkzl@hexbear.net 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Then post articles that say that and not articles that refute your own point. Otherwise you're just being pedantic that no one was killed within the square itself.

[–] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago

It was not a "massacre."

Then post articles that say that and not articles that refute your own point.

picard Even the title of the first article I posted is "There Was No 'Tiananmen Square Massacre'" It's in the url for chrissakes. This is beyond a failure of reading comprehension, it's a failure to even look at words.

It was not. a. massacre. It is not at all pedantic to point this fact out. Especially when people, following a blatantly propagandist narrative line, incorrectly call it that.

My choosing those two sources specifically among the thousands of others that was to point out how ridiculous it is to ban someone for "denying a massacre" when even mainstream western news sources (in addition to the BBC as was mentioned in the comment that caught that user the ban lol), including one of the most famous mouthpieces for the U.S. government's foreign policy, likewise "deny" that it was a massacre and likewise would have been banned according to the silly mod's standards. Those articles did not at all refute my point, they clearly made it, as should be obvious to anyone able to follow this thread.

[–] ringwraithfish@startrek.website 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There it is!

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago

There wat is?

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is a really weird interpretation of authoritarianism.... authoritarian regimes often enforce their authority through 'due' process.

I think the point op is making is that liberal democracies defer authority to capital and enforces it on their behalf. There's a temptation to consider liberalism to be less authoritarian because of this deferral but it's mostly just a slight-of-hand

[–] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well said.

Another very illustrative example of this kind of deferral and obfuscation played by liberal democracies with their use of authoritarianism is the continued use of literal slave labor specifically in the US, which is even enshrined in the constitution. The sleight-of-hand (sleight-of-tongue?) comes from shifting the term slavery into euphemisms for prison labor. A slave population of "prisoners," the vast majority of whom are People of Color, mostly black people, as is the slavery tradition, who are actually pipelined from their schools to prison, and criminalized for engaging in the only means they have of economic independence. The authoritarian slave drivers will tell the general populace they are "bad people, felons" and deserve to be sequestered away from society to live solitary lives doing hard labor for no pay (2 cents an hour doesn't count as pay.)

There is nothing more "authoritarian" than having actual slaves, which is the major reason the prison-industrial complex exists in the US and has more prisoners (read: slaves) than any other country in the world both in absolute numbers and per capita by a ridiculously large margin. That is capitalist-style authoritarianism.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 5 months ago

Right on.

I think lemmy is filled with a lot of people who (maybe) understand this in fewer words. Case-in-point: there are plenty here who are acknowledging this dynamic played out through landlords and ownership of private property.

Making the leap from understanding that type of authority to the authority utilized by AES countries takes some time for some. Similar in the way reactionaries interpret Foucault's description of institutionalized power as inherently negative, power exercised by the state isn't inherently bad, either, especially when the alternative is allowing capitalists to claim it for themselves.

Pointing out that suppressive authority exists even in the liberal democracies that nominally espouse 'freedom' is a good first step but far from the last. The Tienanmen square thing is.... well it definitely gets in the way of that conversation. It's a bit of a socialist's Godwin's Law.

[–] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The Soviets killed Nazis. They were simultaneously one of the most brutal regimes in history, especially under the leader (Stalin) that had the Nazis killed

[–] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago

Calling the Soviets, the people who liberated the concentration camps and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty one of the "most brutal regimes in history" is literally Nazi propaganda. Stop repeating Nazi propaganda.

[–] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Liberals love free speech until you bring up their settler projects