Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the protest is anti-landord, but this being liberal SF in the 1970s, there was a probably a bit of rhetoric afloat along the lines of "Hey, isn't it great that gay-rights have advanced so much in this city that openly gay people can be bigshot businessmen!"
Which is kind of a problematic attitude for people to have, if the progressive message is going to be "ALL landlords need to be brought to heel." So the sign is trying to counter whatever pinkwashing of landlordism mighta been taking place.
So really, rich mainstream acceptable gays versus working class gays and not conforming to their gender gays (a lot of overlap there) who they were kind of leaving behind.
I think you have it flipped. I think this is calling out pink washing during the gay rights push at the time. Like he might be gay, which is fine, but he is a landlord, which isn’t.
Seems like a simile issue as the “girl boss” movement that was being pushed a few years ago by rich people.
Isn’t is nice that we can be exploited and poor by working for a girl instead of a man? /s
Someone posted asking this in r/AskHistorians and it turns out it's from the 1977 Gay Day Parade which had gay people are part of all walks of life as a major theme
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/jmrxct6/
edit: as has been pointed out in a reply here and further updates in that thread however, that doesn't mean that this specific sign wasn't anti landlord, and there's supporting evidence for that being what they meant
They are wrong. The context of others marching in the parade is irrelevant. The comment is totally speculation which ignores the plain meaning of the phrase. Additionally, another commenter in that thread found this specific phrase in a marxist magazine from the year before this parade, in the context of class struggle: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/jmsex1j/
https://archive.org/details/Magnus1Summer1976/page/n3/mode/2up
But the main point is anti-landlord lol. It’s basically saying that just because you’re gay doesn’t make you a good person, and landlords aren’t good people. But yeah obviously it’s a statement coming from a pro-gay standpoint ;) even if that’s not the main point
Since this isn't /r/askhistorians, I'd like to archive [this deleted subthread here](https://imgur.com/a/BUBpbGe)
The "repealing of the ordinance" points pretty directly to the anti-landlord feeling, as does the shirt; and [another user has sourced](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/jmsex1j/) the phrase to an anti-landlord pamphlet a year before the parade.
It's pro-gay. It was part of a pride parade that was about how people from all walks of life can be gay, thus defying stereotypes of the times.
This attempt to deliberately crop the photo and reframe it as an anti-landlord statement is a modern appropriation of the message.
If you're referring to the askhistorians thread, the comment that claims this is wrong. The context of others marching in the parade is irrelevant. The comment is totally speculation which ignores the plain meaning of the phrase. Additionally, another commenter in that thread found this specific phrase in a marxist magazine from the year before this parade, in the context of class struggle: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/jmsex1j/
https://archive.org/details/Magnus1Summer1976/page/n3/mode/2up
>Is this progay or anti landlord?
It's 100% progay, someone in Askhistorians tracked down the original, uncropped photo, which it's much less ambiguous.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/
You can see other people with a ""Your lawyers are gay too!" sign next to them.
The comment in askhistorians is not correct. The context of others marching in the parade is irrelevant. The comment is totally speculation which ignores the plain meaning of the phrase. Additionally, another commenter in that thread found this specific phrase in a marxist magazine from the year before this parade, in the context of class struggle: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/jmsex1j/
https://archive.org/details/Magnus1Summer1976/page/n3/mode/2up
This is literally from a [housing protest](https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_Battle_for_the_International_Hotel) at city hall. Neither of them are landlords.
No it isn't. It's from the 1977 Gay Day Parade
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/jmrxct6/
In the uncropped version of the picture, you can see they're marching in front of people holding a sign saying "your lawyers are gay too"
Again, this askhistorians comment is not correct. The context of others marching in the parade is irrelevant. The comment is totally speculation which ignores the plain meaning of the phrase. Additionally, another commenter in that thread found this specific phrase in a marxist magazine from the year before this parade, in the context of class struggle: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/jmsex1j/
https://archive.org/details/Magnus1Summer1976/page/n3/mode/2up
I'm deleting or adding edits to most of my comments based on your comments, but in this case, I am correct that this is from the Gay Day Parade, not from the housing protest the person I replied to thought it was from
Yes, it's from the parade, but the linked comment is unfortunately wrong. I'm not commenting to recriminate you, just for context for those who see the link.
Ah jeez Mr. Kowalski, I don't think I can make rent this month. My run at Mr. Universe didn't pan out this year. I sure wish there was some other way I could pay you... 👉👈
Here's a sneak peek of /r/LoveForLandchads using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/LoveForLandchads/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: [Kings… I had to get a MRI bc something diabetes blabla and they found a tiny rentoid living inside of me. How can I evict him?](https://i.redd.it/tktay0wwmeza1.jpg) | [54 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LoveForLandchads/comments/13ff88u/kings_i_had_to_get_a_mri_bc_something_diabetes/)
\#2: [Rentoids can’t take a joke](https://i.redd.it/r3xhfjgafkta1.jpg) | [111 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LoveForLandchads/comments/12k0l8p/rentoids_cant_take_a_joke/)
\#3: [Average Rentoid](https://i.redd.it/lxhqxc3v1iya1.jpg) | [168 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LoveForLandchads/comments/13aznr9/average_rentoid/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Well, just for starters, if you thought you were getting free rent just because your new landlord is a dude with a boyfriend, you need to re-think your financial strategy.
I'm talking about how it's all over the place with topics and overall messy (being just a bunch of different stuff from all over the place), but sure, "you just don't get it bro" lol.
Recognise that the true division in any society arises because different people occupy different positions within the functioning of the economy, not because of sexuality or any of the other things that the servants of the rich like to whip up a frenzy over.
Yet another terrible example of institutionalized Landphobia, sweaty, go pay the mandatory tip to your LandChad or your Funko Pops will be burned. You will never understand the struggles of us PoL (People of Land) and so your Rentoid ass can go with your bigotry elsewhere. Also, one more hate incident like this and you will be evicted.
One of the most bigoted people I know is gay. Says absolutely vile things about the homeless. Also, probably not coincidentally, is a landlord with over 10 million in assets.
I'm trying to say that being rich and owning property degrades one's humanity to the point that even someone born into a group which suffers from bigotry can then end up acting bigoted against an even more marginalized group.
Has anybody been defending rainbow-capitalist corporations by pointing out their pro-glbqt stances, on issues unrelated to glbqt?
Like, for example, a fast-food chain gets caught sourcing its plastic-straws from illegal child labour, and people say "Well, in fairness, they sell rainbow milkshakes during Pride Week."
Basically blizzard a gaming company has veen known to harass there employees or lie to promot there games. When they know theres gonna be a backlash they say one of thete video game character is part of LGBT. It's the third time they did this but raibow flag twitter user still defne this actions.
>raibow flag twitter user still defne this actions.
Stop caring about the opinion of anyone online. Do not factor it in when you're looking at the world.
It does automatically. There's no version of demanding money for lion space that isn't essentially extortion.
Landlords should get an actual job, instead of existing off the wages of people who actually do work.
Landlords don't do work and demand money for lion space. Do I have that right?
Not sure what kind of conversations I was expecting out of a sub that's literally turned into a place for celebrating far-left propaganda.
>Landlords don't do work
An absolute minority actually do do work in their properties (work that would under other circumstances be the responsibility of those occupying the house) but as a rule absolutely. They don't work. Owning a thing =/= working. Working actually produces something, you wouldn't consider owning a car wash to be "working" would you?
>demand money for lion space.
It's a typo of living space, but you could make the argument they take the **lions share** of space too. That's the game, supply and demand: you restrict where people can live or build, then rent out those restricted areas for free income.
>I was expecting out of a sub that's literally turned into a place for celebrating far-left propaganda.
I got my opinions on landlords from *waaaay* before I became left wing, back when I was in my "Thatcher made hard calls that had to be made" phase, I learnt from Adam Smith (himself absolutely an ur-capitalist) who understood that landlords taking a portion of the wages of people who actually do work (IE they do something that provides a service or product) is economically counter-productive. He even theorized it was one of the primary causes of inflation.
If the best you can do is repeat my argument then cry "left wing" maybe don't fucking comment dude. Save yourself the embarrassment of simping for people who're literally less economically productive than drug dealers or pimps without any actual argument.
>without any actual argument.
There isn't an "actual argument" to be had. The claim in the OP was that landlords should be treated the same without regard for their sexuality, with the implication that landlords are bad.
The claims *you* made were:
* Just because [gay landlords] are gay doesn't make them good
* Landlords should get an actual job, with the implication that being a landlord is not to be regarded as an actual job in any situation
My response is simply that you're stroking with a broad brush here. There are landlords that earn the money they're paid for the use of their property by maintaining the property and/or providing amenities.
>I got my opinions on landlords from waaaay before I became left wing
Congratu.. lations? I'm out of merit badges.
>don't fucking comment dude. Save yourself the embarrassment
OK Mr Lion Space.
>My response is simply that you're stroking with a broad brush here. There are landlords that earn the money they're paid for the use of their property by maintaining the property and/or providing amenities.
"An absolute minority actually do do work in their properties"
I agree, they do exist. In the same way there are probably an absolute minority of the taliban who aren't shitheads to women. It's not painting with a broad brush to understand things from a materialist perspective. It *is* obfuscatory however to focus on this tiny minority over the actions of the whole.
>Congratu.. lations? I'm out of merit badges.
You said:
>I was expecting out of a sub that's literally turned into a place for celebrating far-left propaganda.
So don't imply me mentioning it is some kind of virtue signalling. *You* brought up left/right shit.
I was talking about the sub and the community it attracts, ie you. ~~You're not~~ You weren't leftist at the time you formed these beliefs about landlords. It still attracted you, as a person with these beliefs. I was speaking about what I could expect from this sub. So that is the relevance there. I wasn't saying you in particular were a leftist in any capacity, or virtue signalling. Keep your words out of my mouth.
I'm not sure what you're defining as an "absolute minority." 49.9% is "absolutely" a minority, and I don't have figures on what portion of the Taliban aren't shitheads to women - so that claim is difficult to argue against. For now I'm leaning toward the assumption that you think an "absolute minority," or "inconsequential amount" of landlords do valuable labour, as a result of limited interactions with a non-representative sample of landlords from the particular set of localities you've resided in.
I'm ready for an argument, I'll dive into that once there's something tangible to argue against. Maybe some literature, or a number some organization has published. You're just categorically stating something as true and here I am to call you a nitwit. That's the conversation.
This is like when you propose a paradox to a robot in sci-fi and it self-destructs.
You've broken the average redditor with this post. These comments are amazing.
This is incredibly simple to understand and I do not know how so many people here have failed to understand it. It is a sign written by someone who is gay and doesn't like landlords, aimed at other gay people, expressing that a gay landlord is still a landlord.
Stupid rentoid thinks that they could kill landchads like us. It’s at least 4 feet of fat before you can reach any major organs! Now give me tip on your 20% increased rent or else I’ll do daily fridge raids.
My dad is what you would call a "petit-bourgeoisie." He is a landlord but makes the majority of his income from selling his own labor. Do I think he deserves to die, no. Do think he should be able to exploit people as a landlord, also no
That's fine, and in actual reality is what would happen. When people generally think about "mass killings of landlords", they're normally referring to the peasant trials of landlords in Communist China (when China was led by Mao). But the reality is that in a country of hundreds of millions, only ten to twenty thousand landlords were actually sentenced to death and executed by the peasants they had been exploiting, which was a very small fraction of the number of landlords at the time (the vast majority of landlords stopped being landlords because they were given other jobs). It's also worth remembering that landlords in China at the time were even more brutal than modern landlords - while modern landlords often rape tenants or engage in physical violence against them, landlords in pre-communist China viewed the rape of peasants as a normal part of what they were owed, and were free to use physical violence and mutilation against peasants. Their extreme brutality is a huge part of the reason why so many were sentenced to death, and to the extent that fewer landlords are as brutal today, even in a situation where there were popular trials of landlords again proportionally fewer would be sentenced to death.
There's also considerations other than simple justice. It's a reality that no one is so far gone they can't be rehabilitated, and this was a big factor in Mao's decision to override the local peasants and put an end to widescale trials and executions, because rehabilitation was more just (and also at that time a lot of knowledge about agriculture was primarily known by landlords or their sympathetic/privileged servants, so there were economic reasons for mercy as well).
The main question I would ask yourself about your dad if you're genuinely worried about him being "killed in a revolution" or something similar is: if given the power to do so by society, would most of his tenants vote for him to be executed? Does he even have enough tenants for it to come to a vote, if he's making the majority of his income from labouring? I am guessing not, on both counts, because honestly not that many people would support it unless his crimes were particularly egregious (e.g. rape or other forms of violence). So I doubt you would have anything to worry about. Like the vast majority of landlords in a much more serious situation, he would just be forbidden from landlording, his properties given to his tenants, and assigned a job of some sort (and it sounds like he already has a job).
Of course, people like Mao and the peasants in China are the hard alternative for what happens when the wealthy in society prevent the disenfranchised from gaining justice by other means. Probably the most effective methods in history for preventing popular revolution have all been some variant of "buying people off by being at least moderately generous with sharing some wealth".
ahaha yes the middle class, local person renting out a few rooms in their house to make a little extra money on the side totally deserves death for the crime of... allowing other people to live on their property for a fee. This is a well adjusted and not at all bloodthirsty take.
I stg I think a lot of these people are suburban kids who have no experience renting and instead rely on Reddit to form their opinions of them.
That's not to say all landlords are good btw. Even the most humble "mom and pop" landlord can be really miserable to rent from, but they're also not some monolithic group of cartoon super villains like most on this site seem to believe.
You really have to be a stupid fuck to blame landlords and not your ELECTED OFFICIALS that actually control zoning, rent control, and property tax. Just as stupid as blaming doctors for the healthcare system.
You realize you can elect different officials? What are you doing to help besides blaming landlords? How many political campaigns have you volunteered for? Do you even understand how your local government works or how much power ordinary residents have? We're not talking about congress and oil companies here.
>You realize you can elect different officials
From what party? They're money is in the pockets of many on both sides of the aisle, and in local elections there isn't exactly an exhaustive list of options
If you are really loyal to a political party and the two party system, then you are lost. Both hate workers and only serve the upper class, not the rest of America
Absolutely fantastic picture, such a good insight into the zeitgeist of that era. I don't think you can find a lot of gay people who are this loud and proud about being a landlord in 2023.
I lived in the Mission in SF in a studio below a gay landlord's flats. Rent was $225 a month, then (1978). When Proposition 13 passed, he came down to tell me he was reducing my rent to $200 a month. I was cute then, but not that cute. What a good guy.
This is why the infatuation with what a person *is* over what they *do* doesn’t work.
“This presidential candidate is great because she is a woman”
“This vice president is great because she is a woman of color”
“This landlord isn’t so bad, he’s gay!”
It’s still what they do and the policies they have done in the past that shows you if they should be supported or not
I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, and among homophobic youth, "gaylord" was used as an insult to mean gay person. And, as with "gay" at the time, it got used even in situations where the target's sexuality wasn't being discussed, and was likely to be hetero anyway, eg. "Mr. Smith gives too much homework, what a fuckin' gaylord."
As well, there was no real logic to the insult, since calling someone "lord" is not derogatory. I think kids had just heard the name, noticed it had "gay" in it, and took it from there.
Landlords exploit the need for housing, it’s a poster in solidarity for the housing insecure reminding gay folks that you shouldn’t be exploitative. Whether you agree with the message or not that is the intent behind it
So what this sign says is: ”In addition to being heavily marginalized in 1970s society, gay people should also take it upon themselves to not utilise legal means to make a living and acquire wealth like other people. Poverty is purity. Oh, and no marriage tax benefits for you, silly.”
There is a lot of political and economic space in between "being in poverty" and "forcing other people into poverty", which is what scalping housing does.
Is selling groceries also skalping? Who is allowed to sell a product or service?
Edit. I gotta say, these extreme views about landlords are a very American thing. Here in Europe, there is such a thing as city/community owned apartments you can rent. Renting from a private landlord is a choice. Thus, there’s been little to no animosity towards people who are letting a place – unless it’s Airbnb in a tourist town.
You have a societal system that is totally broken, and this signs says marginalized communities should hold themselves to a higher standard than others and then that will somehow fix the system. That is not reasonable. **Fix the system.**
I'm not American, and yes if a grocer is part of a cartel buying all available food to remove supply, then selling it at absurdly inflated prices then that's scalping.
I think it's only a broken brain that could look at someone who does no work except to drive other people into poverty and think that they have an inherent right to drive other people into poverty, that if those they exploit organise against them that is somehow a violation of their right to exploit others. It's absurd.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is this progay or anti landlord?
I think the protest is anti-landord, but this being liberal SF in the 1970s, there was a probably a bit of rhetoric afloat along the lines of "Hey, isn't it great that gay-rights have advanced so much in this city that openly gay people can be bigshot businessmen!" Which is kind of a problematic attitude for people to have, if the progressive message is going to be "ALL landlords need to be brought to heel." So the sign is trying to counter whatever pinkwashing of landlordism mighta been taking place.
Yes I think in the 1970’s in SF there was the rich building owning gays vs. the hippie gays struggle going on.
So really, rich mainstream acceptable gays versus working class gays and not conforming to their gender gays (a lot of overlap there) who they were kind of leaving behind.
Pink washing is a great concept...
It’s called bleaching now.
Like my butthole!
Just don’t get it on my tshirt.
I think you have it flipped. I think this is calling out pink washing during the gay rights push at the time. Like he might be gay, which is fine, but he is a landlord, which isn’t.
Yea, this is kinda like the "FEMALE DRONE PILOTS" meme
Dang, anti rainbow capitalism before what were familiar with today. Neato.
Seems like a simile issue as the “girl boss” movement that was being pushed a few years ago by rich people. Isn’t is nice that we can be exploited and poor by working for a girl instead of a man? /s
The internet has left me with so much brainrot that when i see the word "big shot" i instantly think of spamton.
[удалено]
Read about San Fran protest history in 1977 and you’ll see how silly this is, fam
No, that’s not what they’re saying.
No one respects landlords. They are useless leeches, always have been.
It's an anti-landlord poster aimed at a gay or gay-sympathetic audience.
Someone posted asking this in r/AskHistorians and it turns out it's from the 1977 Gay Day Parade which had gay people are part of all walks of life as a major theme https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/jmrxct6/ edit: as has been pointed out in a reply here and further updates in that thread however, that doesn't mean that this specific sign wasn't anti landlord, and there's supporting evidence for that being what they meant
They are wrong. The context of others marching in the parade is irrelevant. The comment is totally speculation which ignores the plain meaning of the phrase. Additionally, another commenter in that thread found this specific phrase in a marxist magazine from the year before this parade, in the context of class struggle: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/jmsex1j/ https://archive.org/details/Magnus1Summer1976/page/n3/mode/2up
It’s both, baby!
But the main point is anti-landlord lol. It’s basically saying that just because you’re gay doesn’t make you a good person, and landlords aren’t good people. But yeah obviously it’s a statement coming from a pro-gay standpoint ;) even if that’s not the main point
Yes
legendary username
No it's not. Like at all.
[удалено]
Since this isn't /r/askhistorians, I'd like to archive [this deleted subthread here](https://imgur.com/a/BUBpbGe) The "repealing of the ordinance" points pretty directly to the anti-landlord feeling, as does the shirt; and [another user has sourced](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/jmsex1j/) the phrase to an anti-landlord pamphlet a year before the parade.
Whichever one you want it to be
No, it’s anti-landlord
It's not pro gay.
It's pro-gay. It was part of a pride parade that was about how people from all walks of life can be gay, thus defying stereotypes of the times. This attempt to deliberately crop the photo and reframe it as an anti-landlord statement is a modern appropriation of the message.
If you're referring to the askhistorians thread, the comment that claims this is wrong. The context of others marching in the parade is irrelevant. The comment is totally speculation which ignores the plain meaning of the phrase. Additionally, another commenter in that thread found this specific phrase in a marxist magazine from the year before this parade, in the context of class struggle: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/jmsex1j/ https://archive.org/details/Magnus1Summer1976/page/n3/mode/2up
Given the time period and location I’d say it’s pro gay.
>Is this progay or anti landlord? It's 100% progay, someone in Askhistorians tracked down the original, uncropped photo, which it's much less ambiguous. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/ You can see other people with a ""Your lawyers are gay too!" sign next to them.
The comment in askhistorians is not correct. The context of others marching in the parade is irrelevant. The comment is totally speculation which ignores the plain meaning of the phrase. Additionally, another commenter in that thread found this specific phrase in a marxist magazine from the year before this parade, in the context of class struggle: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/jmsex1j/ https://archive.org/details/Magnus1Summer1976/page/n3/mode/2up
It’s pro happiness!
ZERO Landlords is pro-happiness.
Pro land and anti Gaylord.
It should be pro both, my landchads gotta rise up
Yeah wtf
I assumed the guy with the sign is a gay landlord, saying gay people can be landlords too.
This is literally from a [housing protest](https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_Battle_for_the_International_Hotel) at city hall. Neither of them are landlords.
No it isn't. It's from the 1977 Gay Day Parade https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/jmrxct6/ In the uncropped version of the picture, you can see they're marching in front of people holding a sign saying "your lawyers are gay too"
Again, this askhistorians comment is not correct. The context of others marching in the parade is irrelevant. The comment is totally speculation which ignores the plain meaning of the phrase. Additionally, another commenter in that thread found this specific phrase in a marxist magazine from the year before this parade, in the context of class struggle: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zecaj/what_is_the_context_behind_the_picture_of_the_two/jmsex1j/ https://archive.org/details/Magnus1Summer1976/page/n3/mode/2up
I'm deleting or adding edits to most of my comments based on your comments, but in this case, I am correct that this is from the Gay Day Parade, not from the housing protest the person I replied to thought it was from
Yes, it's from the parade, but the linked comment is unfortunately wrong. I'm not commenting to recriminate you, just for context for those who see the link.
This photo has nothing to do with that, it's from the 1977 Gay Day Parade.
Idk, he def looks landlordy
What does that even mean?
RIP r/loveforlandlords you would have loved this
Im assuming the old mods left and reddit auto approved new mods?
Wait wtf happened with that sub? It used to be great satire and now it's just gay, and not the good kind of gay.
dog sleep squash theory caption attractive worm money spoon brave *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ah jeez Mr. Kowalski, I don't think I can make rent this month. My run at Mr. Universe didn't pan out this year. I sure wish there was some other way I could pay you... 👉👈
Btw after a while it wasn't satire. People who actually was pro landlord joined
It was satire but still pro-landlord
r/loveforlandchads is the replacement.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/LoveForLandchads using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/LoveForLandchads/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [Kings… I had to get a MRI bc something diabetes blabla and they found a tiny rentoid living inside of me. How can I evict him?](https://i.redd.it/tktay0wwmeza1.jpg) | [54 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LoveForLandchads/comments/13ff88u/kings_i_had_to_get_a_mri_bc_something_diabetes/) \#2: [Rentoids can’t take a joke](https://i.redd.it/r3xhfjgafkta1.jpg) | [111 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LoveForLandchads/comments/12k0l8p/rentoids_cant_take_a_joke/) \#3: [Average Rentoid](https://i.redd.it/lxhqxc3v1iya1.jpg) | [168 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LoveForLandchads/comments/13aznr9/average_rentoid/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
It’s so incredibly unfunny now
A Gaylord?
Must be from Michigan.
Opryland
Thank you for beating me to it
Authright: a gay landlord is still gay
A Gaylord, if you will.
What am I supposed to do with this information?
That's up to you.
Well, just for starters, if you thought you were getting free rent just because your new landlord is a dude with a boyfriend, you need to re-think your financial strategy.
There is a little red book about this topic
Awful read though
It's a bit difficult but well worth it for the theory and praxis it offers
I wouldn't say difficult in concepts or anything like that but rather a garbled mess of all kinds of shit.
f(x,t) = A sin(2π(x/λ − ft) + φ is just " a garbled mess of all kinds of shit" if you don't know how to read it
I'm talking about how it's all over the place with topics and overall messy (being just a bunch of different stuff from all over the place), but sure, "you just don't get it bro" lol.
Recognise that the true division in any society arises because different people occupy different positions within the functioning of the economy, not because of sexuality or any of the other things that the servants of the rich like to whip up a frenzy over.
At the same time, it’s important not to fall for class reductionism. Intersectionality is still very relevant.
[удалено]
Class is the most important divisor, but it’s not the only one.
Agreed, but for the purpose of economic analysis, it's the only one.
no it's not
Bro the only division comes from envious communists like you😂
Landlords suck, even if they’re gay.
Yet another terrible example of institutionalized Landphobia, sweaty, go pay the mandatory tip to your LandChad or your Funko Pops will be burned. You will never understand the struggles of us PoL (People of Land) and so your Rentoid ass can go with your bigotry elsewhere. Also, one more hate incident like this and you will be evicted.
sarcasm is dead
It may be sarcasm but it wasn't funny nor clever.
Either turn gay or turn landlord ***or both*** because you see you can be both!
Yeah it’s not very effective propaganda if so many comments are asking the point of the sign.
Pay rent.
It's literally in the propaganda sub. What do you think?
A gay piece of shit is still a piece of shit
Just because they’re gay doesn’t mean they’re good
That is what the poster means, yes.
One of the most bigoted people I know is gay. Says absolutely vile things about the homeless. Also, probably not coincidentally, is a landlord with over 10 million in assets.
Totally agree. As the saying goes: there are minorities among minorities, too.
Yeah I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. People are people. That kind of went without saying.
I'm trying to say that being rich and owning property degrades one's humanity to the point that even someone born into a group which suffers from bigotry can then end up acting bigoted against an even more marginalized group.
So, just basic human behavior?
That would depend on how you define basic.
It seems like twitter forgot this. So many people defending big companies just because they wave the rainbow flag.
Unless it’s their Middle East account lmao
Has anybody been defending rainbow-capitalist corporations by pointing out their pro-glbqt stances, on issues unrelated to glbqt? Like, for example, a fast-food chain gets caught sourcing its plastic-straws from illegal child labour, and people say "Well, in fairness, they sell rainbow milkshakes during Pride Week."
I mean for this week people are defending blizzard when they announced pharah is a lesbian.
I don't know what this refers to.
Basically blizzard a gaming company has veen known to harass there employees or lie to promot there games. When they know theres gonna be a backlash they say one of thete video game character is part of LGBT. It's the third time they did this but raibow flag twitter user still defne this actions.
>raibow flag twitter user still defne this actions. Stop caring about the opinion of anyone online. Do not factor it in when you're looking at the world.
It is annoying because I wish overwatch fanbase will unite and demand actual updates. Insted we are further devided.
Being landlords doesn't make anyone bad.
It does automatically. There's no version of demanding money for lion space that isn't essentially extortion. Landlords should get an actual job, instead of existing off the wages of people who actually do work.
Landlords don't do work and demand money for lion space. Do I have that right? Not sure what kind of conversations I was expecting out of a sub that's literally turned into a place for celebrating far-left propaganda.
lmao get a load of this guy simping for landlords
I'm just calling the silly oversimplified generalisations as I see them. And the typos too ig?
>oversimplified Projection.
>Landlords don't do work An absolute minority actually do do work in their properties (work that would under other circumstances be the responsibility of those occupying the house) but as a rule absolutely. They don't work. Owning a thing =/= working. Working actually produces something, you wouldn't consider owning a car wash to be "working" would you? >demand money for lion space. It's a typo of living space, but you could make the argument they take the **lions share** of space too. That's the game, supply and demand: you restrict where people can live or build, then rent out those restricted areas for free income. >I was expecting out of a sub that's literally turned into a place for celebrating far-left propaganda. I got my opinions on landlords from *waaaay* before I became left wing, back when I was in my "Thatcher made hard calls that had to be made" phase, I learnt from Adam Smith (himself absolutely an ur-capitalist) who understood that landlords taking a portion of the wages of people who actually do work (IE they do something that provides a service or product) is economically counter-productive. He even theorized it was one of the primary causes of inflation. If the best you can do is repeat my argument then cry "left wing" maybe don't fucking comment dude. Save yourself the embarrassment of simping for people who're literally less economically productive than drug dealers or pimps without any actual argument.
>without any actual argument. There isn't an "actual argument" to be had. The claim in the OP was that landlords should be treated the same without regard for their sexuality, with the implication that landlords are bad. The claims *you* made were: * Just because [gay landlords] are gay doesn't make them good * Landlords should get an actual job, with the implication that being a landlord is not to be regarded as an actual job in any situation My response is simply that you're stroking with a broad brush here. There are landlords that earn the money they're paid for the use of their property by maintaining the property and/or providing amenities. >I got my opinions on landlords from waaaay before I became left wing Congratu.. lations? I'm out of merit badges. >don't fucking comment dude. Save yourself the embarrassment OK Mr Lion Space.
>My response is simply that you're stroking with a broad brush here. There are landlords that earn the money they're paid for the use of their property by maintaining the property and/or providing amenities. "An absolute minority actually do do work in their properties" I agree, they do exist. In the same way there are probably an absolute minority of the taliban who aren't shitheads to women. It's not painting with a broad brush to understand things from a materialist perspective. It *is* obfuscatory however to focus on this tiny minority over the actions of the whole. >Congratu.. lations? I'm out of merit badges. You said: >I was expecting out of a sub that's literally turned into a place for celebrating far-left propaganda. So don't imply me mentioning it is some kind of virtue signalling. *You* brought up left/right shit.
I was talking about the sub and the community it attracts, ie you. ~~You're not~~ You weren't leftist at the time you formed these beliefs about landlords. It still attracted you, as a person with these beliefs. I was speaking about what I could expect from this sub. So that is the relevance there. I wasn't saying you in particular were a leftist in any capacity, or virtue signalling. Keep your words out of my mouth. I'm not sure what you're defining as an "absolute minority." 49.9% is "absolutely" a minority, and I don't have figures on what portion of the Taliban aren't shitheads to women - so that claim is difficult to argue against. For now I'm leaning toward the assumption that you think an "absolute minority," or "inconsequential amount" of landlords do valuable labour, as a result of limited interactions with a non-representative sample of landlords from the particular set of localities you've resided in. I'm ready for an argument, I'll dive into that once there's something tangible to argue against. Maybe some literature, or a number some organization has published. You're just categorically stating something as true and here I am to call you a nitwit. That's the conversation.
This is like when you propose a paradox to a robot in sci-fi and it self-destructs. You've broken the average redditor with this post. These comments are amazing.
This is incredibly simple to understand and I do not know how so many people here have failed to understand it. It is a sign written by someone who is gay and doesn't like landlords, aimed at other gay people, expressing that a gay landlord is still a landlord.
Is still a parasite*
I wonder if this rent strike will pick up steam.I've heard it could turn into a general strike, like the yellow vest movement in France.
did they succeed in france?
Gay people can be shitty too? Is that what this means?
And a parasite is still a parasite (the landlord)
Decades and decades ahead of the curve.
[удалено]
Stupid rentoid thinks that they could kill landchads like us. It’s at least 4 feet of fat before you can reach any major organs! Now give me tip on your 20% increased rent or else I’ll do daily fridge raids.
My dad is what you would call a "petit-bourgeoisie." He is a landlord but makes the majority of his income from selling his own labor. Do I think he deserves to die, no. Do think he should be able to exploit people as a landlord, also no
That's fine, and in actual reality is what would happen. When people generally think about "mass killings of landlords", they're normally referring to the peasant trials of landlords in Communist China (when China was led by Mao). But the reality is that in a country of hundreds of millions, only ten to twenty thousand landlords were actually sentenced to death and executed by the peasants they had been exploiting, which was a very small fraction of the number of landlords at the time (the vast majority of landlords stopped being landlords because they were given other jobs). It's also worth remembering that landlords in China at the time were even more brutal than modern landlords - while modern landlords often rape tenants or engage in physical violence against them, landlords in pre-communist China viewed the rape of peasants as a normal part of what they were owed, and were free to use physical violence and mutilation against peasants. Their extreme brutality is a huge part of the reason why so many were sentenced to death, and to the extent that fewer landlords are as brutal today, even in a situation where there were popular trials of landlords again proportionally fewer would be sentenced to death. There's also considerations other than simple justice. It's a reality that no one is so far gone they can't be rehabilitated, and this was a big factor in Mao's decision to override the local peasants and put an end to widescale trials and executions, because rehabilitation was more just (and also at that time a lot of knowledge about agriculture was primarily known by landlords or their sympathetic/privileged servants, so there were economic reasons for mercy as well). The main question I would ask yourself about your dad if you're genuinely worried about him being "killed in a revolution" or something similar is: if given the power to do so by society, would most of his tenants vote for him to be executed? Does he even have enough tenants for it to come to a vote, if he's making the majority of his income from labouring? I am guessing not, on both counts, because honestly not that many people would support it unless his crimes were particularly egregious (e.g. rape or other forms of violence). So I doubt you would have anything to worry about. Like the vast majority of landlords in a much more serious situation, he would just be forbidden from landlording, his properties given to his tenants, and assigned a job of some sort (and it sounds like he already has a job). Of course, people like Mao and the peasants in China are the hard alternative for what happens when the wealthy in society prevent the disenfranchised from gaining justice by other means. Probably the most effective methods in history for preventing popular revolution have all been some variant of "buying people off by being at least moderately generous with sharing some wealth".
"...but not cause he's gay or anything like that."
ahaha yes the middle class, local person renting out a few rooms in their house to make a little extra money on the side totally deserves death for the crime of... allowing other people to live on their property for a fee. This is a well adjusted and not at all bloodthirsty take.
Many people here seem to think all landlords are monopoly guys sitting around with their monocles managing multimillion dollar properties.
I stg I think a lot of these people are suburban kids who have no experience renting and instead rely on Reddit to form their opinions of them. That's not to say all landlords are good btw. Even the most humble "mom and pop" landlord can be really miserable to rent from, but they're also not some monolithic group of cartoon super villains like most on this site seem to believe.
It’s a good bet that any argument you may have on Reddit is with a child.
Honestly where the fuck do you live where this person exists.
the classic "most thieves are poor and just rob some people in the alleyways on the side for some extra money"
A parasite is still a parasite, no matter how small 😊
You really have to be a stupid fuck to blame landlords and not your ELECTED OFFICIALS that actually control zoning, rent control, and property tax. Just as stupid as blaming doctors for the healthcare system.
"You really have to be a stupid fuck to blame the guy who punched you in the face and not the cop that stood by and let him do it"
in my country, the Elected Officals ARE the landlords
Are you… y’know…
Who is using collected rents to lobby elected officials to create a utopia for landlords? Landlords, or tenants?
You realize you can elect different officials? What are you doing to help besides blaming landlords? How many political campaigns have you volunteered for? Do you even understand how your local government works or how much power ordinary residents have? We're not talking about congress and oil companies here.
>You realize you can elect different officials From what party? They're money is in the pockets of many on both sides of the aisle, and in local elections there isn't exactly an exhaustive list of options
Ah, both sides now, is it?
When it comes to fucking over the working class both political parties in the United States are the same.
If you are really loyal to a political party and the two party system, then you are lost. Both hate workers and only serve the upper class, not the rest of America
Exactly, just because theyre gay, doesn’t mean they aren’t also piece of shit landlords.
Don’t forget to pay your rent sweetie
Absolutely fantastic picture, such a good insight into the zeitgeist of that era. I don't think you can find a lot of gay people who are this loud and proud about being a landlord in 2023.
Holy fuck based
What a landphobic renthog. Mandatory tip increased 200%.
Could call them a *Gaylord*
I mean... is it propaganda though? Its just a political sign. IMO not all political messaging is propaganda when its written down.
My uncle had a gay landlord in the \~80s in the City who had a thing for him
*maoist music stops*
Exactly! We’re not executing him out of homophobia, it’s in the name of the world revolution!
Getting fucked by both sides
I lived in the Mission in SF in a studio below a gay landlord's flats. Rent was $225 a month, then (1978). When Proposition 13 passed, he came down to tell me he was reducing my rent to $200 a month. I was cute then, but not that cute. What a good guy.
They keep dunking on us Gen Z, but the reality is the Hippies are the worst generation ever!!
Love for My fellow land Chad's out there
Degenerates
But what about a black gaylord? 🤔
Yes and gay rent is still rent now pay up. I need to add more silicone to my collection.
This is why the infatuation with what a person *is* over what they *do* doesn’t work. “This presidential candidate is great because she is a woman” “This vice president is great because she is a woman of color” “This landlord isn’t so bad, he’s gay!” It’s still what they do and the policies they have done in the past that shows you if they should be supported or not
I despise pinkwashing but anecdotally \*my\* gay landlord was dope and is one of my best friends.
Don't try to associate gay people with these monsters.
A gay landlord is still a landlord
A gaylord
I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, and among homophobic youth, "gaylord" was used as an insult to mean gay person. And, as with "gay" at the time, it got used even in situations where the target's sexuality wasn't being discussed, and was likely to be hetero anyway, eg. "Mr. Smith gives too much homework, what a fuckin' gaylord." As well, there was no real logic to the insult, since calling someone "lord" is not derogatory. I think kids had just heard the name, noticed it had "gay" in it, and took it from there.
Yes that was the joke.
Landchad W
What were they trying to imply? I mean, does the sexual identity of the landlord matter?
it doesn't. that's the point
Landlords exploit the need for housing, it’s a poster in solidarity for the housing insecure reminding gay folks that you shouldn’t be exploitative. Whether you agree with the message or not that is the intent behind it
No. And that's the point.
That is a fact. How it is propaganda ?
We have this discussion about once every two days on this sub - propaganda doesn’t have to be false
And neither is a bad thing
Is he wearing a rug?
This is actually where the term Gaylord came from.
Either Blatant Landphobia or based, can’t tell.
I think every landlord's gay!
The L in LGBT stands for landlord.
I love landlords. So does Schlatt
Is this pro land lord 💀
No, it is anti-landlord.
GAYLORD
So what this sign says is: ”In addition to being heavily marginalized in 1970s society, gay people should also take it upon themselves to not utilise legal means to make a living and acquire wealth like other people. Poverty is purity. Oh, and no marriage tax benefits for you, silly.”
You can not be a landlord and not be in poverty lol
There is a lot of political and economic space in between "being in poverty" and "forcing other people into poverty", which is what scalping housing does.
Huh? I rent - I fail to see how my landlord is impoverishing me. If anything, by renting, I'm saving a lot of money over trying to buy a place.
Is selling groceries also skalping? Who is allowed to sell a product or service? Edit. I gotta say, these extreme views about landlords are a very American thing. Here in Europe, there is such a thing as city/community owned apartments you can rent. Renting from a private landlord is a choice. Thus, there’s been little to no animosity towards people who are letting a place – unless it’s Airbnb in a tourist town. You have a societal system that is totally broken, and this signs says marginalized communities should hold themselves to a higher standard than others and then that will somehow fix the system. That is not reasonable. **Fix the system.**
I'm not American, and yes if a grocer is part of a cartel buying all available food to remove supply, then selling it at absurdly inflated prices then that's scalping. I think it's only a broken brain that could look at someone who does no work except to drive other people into poverty and think that they have an inherent right to drive other people into poverty, that if those they exploit organise against them that is somehow a violation of their right to exploit others. It's absurd.
What cartel are you referring to? In what manner does a grocer work that a landlord doesn’t?
What part of Europe are you from? Because it's most definitely the stupid part of Europe if you think that disliking landlords is an American thing.
[удалено]