desertrain10 ·


Last Active
  • Sexual Harassment and How Men Can Take Responsibility For Their Actions

    zombie wrote: »
    Trashboat wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Trashboat wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    look men are not going to change we are going to objectify you and there is nothing you can do about it if you wear a tight skirt i'm going to try and get some of that pussy.

    i'm not going to just grab you because that would be counter productive to my goal all this feminism shit that tries to ignore human nature needs to stop.

    people change all the time
    we used to marry 15 year olds
    now we don't

    your argument does not reflect reality

    We don't marry 15 year olds now because people are living longer there was a change in human life the deleted the rush to marry and reproduce so quick. can you Stop being a fucking pussy for one second, men want to fuck women women want to be fucked or at lest they want the attention. we are just giving them what the fuck they want.

    what can you do to stop a man from trying ?? nothing .

    put a bullet in his head, lock him in a cell for 25 years, run him over with my car, gas him with zyklon b.. many things can stop him

    calling me a pussy does not change the fact that human mating practices evolve
    not only the ways we court women but the views of what is acceptable and unacceptable
    from the surge in divorce to the concept of going dutch and open relationships

    None of that shit has changed a fucking thing men still think the same the only real difference has been in our bouncing levels of freedom in expressing our urges. Men like you and others on this site have allowed women to unman males in this society. I don't advocate men touching women but other than that we should be able to say and do whatever the fuck we want. Women don't want the attention then it's on them to do something about it

    I called you a pussy but what i really meant was your whole way of thinking is pussy It was not just a personal attack. this whole modern man 25% faggot way of seeing things is just fucking real pussy and unmanly. Divorce in most cases is unacceptable to me and so is going dutch and there is no such thing as an open relationship to me, if i'm fucking other girls it means i don't have a girlfriend and therefore am in no form or relationship except a sexual one.

    So you're saying men should have free reign to say whatever, send unwanted dick pics, joke about rape, make overt sexual gestures, get into the personal space of a woman, etc...basically reducing women including your mother or sister to a hole to place their dick in...
  • Rich Door, Poor Door

    1of1 wrote: »
    So they'll prevent access into one door or the other with key fob programming?

    Or will they take measures to INFLUENCE entry into one door or the other but not REQUIRE it?

    The FHA prohibits discrimination on the basis of any of these 7 classes:
    1. Race
    2. Color
    3. Religion
    4. National Origin
    5. Sex
    6. Disability
    7. Familial Status

    States and Cities extend further protections based on other factors if they choose to do so.

    I think NYC offers protection from discrimination based on "source of income." As long as you have a "lawful source of income" (which includes any form of federal, state, or local public assistance or housing assistance including section 8 vouchers) the property owners or their agents can't discriminate against you based on how your housing is paid for.

    Now there are buildings/complexes that are structured to have certain residents use one entrance while others use another...out of convenience. If it's structured so the high end units have a certain view on one or two sides of the building and they're all bunched together, then there really is no problem with this. The perception is bad when you frame it as "Rich Door, Poor Door."

    The part the reason why the entrance has earned the name "poor door" is because it's located at the back of the building near an alley way

    Obviously the developers and whoever are going to take advantage of inclusionary housing polices because of the zoning and tax benefits, they exist to make a profit....

    My issue is more so with the city for approving such a thing ...if it was a structural issue they could have easily demanded that the lower income places be mixed with the other apartments. Otherwise they would only get the tax break on the income produced solely on those few low income residents not the income on the entire building

    And with the amenities like many places why couldn't there be passes to the gym, pool, etc every tenant would have the opportunity to purchase at varying rates/prices...which would be fair

    But noooo, rich white people shouldn't to live and workout amongst the lower income folk

    Really just illustrates how america is nothing more than a plutocracy

  • Rich Door, Poor Door

    What? Lol

    Developers, landlords, etc receive tax credits and other substantial benefits for offering lower income housing though so no this isn't really capitalism at work

    Not to mention one of the goals of the inclusionary housing programs is the full integration of various socio-economic populations

    This is just about not doing anything to offend the sensibilities of rich white people

    You can't be serious. If it were that simple, these developers would have been doing it all along. Again, we're talking about housing in Manhattan that usually costs millions of dollars for one unit being given away for 60% of the median income in the area. No amount of tax credits and benefits will make up for that. The only reason these developers are doing this is because the government is now offering the incentive of relaxing on the building restrictions.

    And yes, the developers are absolutely doing this to keep the rich people in their developments happy, and they should. Because anybody would get annoyed if they are paying 5 million dollars to live in a premium building and others are basically getting the same perk for $150,000. Again, if you paid $100 to get into VIP at a club, and after you did that, they started letting a bunch of people in there for $5, you'd be pissed too. If the developers didn't do something to offset that change, then the rich people would just leave and go somewhere else. That is capitalism. Ya'll don't have to like it. That's fine. But what country have ya'll been living one when you think that this is any different than 90% of the financial transactions that happen in this country on a daily basis?

    Yea this isn't anything new, nor did anyone imply that such was the case

    In conjunction with the tax credits worth millions, the benefits I was referring to was zoning breaks which means the developers stands to make as much as $100 million in floor space it couldn't previously build

    But we are basically in agreement about the details to the story, I just disagree that is just capitalism at work. Its wrong. And not something we as tax payers should just tolerate. Fine the tenants who are paying full rent get to enjoy water front views, bigger apartments and such....but everyone should be able to use the buildings amenities Im sure those tax, zoning benefits helped to build and everyone should be able to use the same fucking door

  • Rich Door, Poor Door

    Ol Jay's wrote: »
    this shit no different than paying to go thru the V.I.P. door at the club

    if you dont like the rules dont choose to live there, people complain to much


    The shit is classit and low key racist

    And at a time when low income housing comes at a premium, why wouldn't a family looking to move to a better area want to move there...they shouldn't be treated any di
    People are trying to compare this to segregation, but I think that's just a result of the jaded way the article is being written.

    Like someone said, this is really more similar to Club VIP sections than segregation. Basically, you have some super expensive housing facilities that are being required to dedicate space to lower income residents. So in an attempt to continue to justify the extreme prices they are charging the wealthier residents, they are giving perks to them. Yes, the door is one of them. It's not just that though. The wealthier residents get access to the special amenities and the poorer ones don't. Also, the more expensive homes are on the side of the building with the better view.

    If you've got a problem with this then you basically have a problem with capitalism because this same thing happens in almost every aspect of American society. If you have more money to spend, shit will be better for you. Period.

    What? Lol

    Developers, landlords, etc receive tax credits and other substantial benefits for offering lower income housing though so no this isn't really capitalism at work

    Not to mention one of the goals of the inclusionary housing programs is the full integration of various socio-economic populations

    This is just about not doing anything to offend the sensibilities of rich white people

  • Woman Writes Article "Why I Will Not March For Eric Garner"

    jono wrote: »
    She's one tacky sister. Her message may have merit but it is unrelated to the Garner issue.

    This... seems sort of like she was exploiting his death to air out her own grievances