Not having any idea what this meme was referring to, I could pretty easily make a good inference based on the format (Ed Sheeran taking a position on genocide by not taking a position on genocide).
However, this comment citing Robert Kraft’s inclusion in the Epstein files while name-dropping Macklemore—somehow in reference to Ed Sheeran and genocide—what did I miss?
He directly supported genocide by claiming holding a Palestinian flag hurt the feeling of a lot of people this is a denial, of palestinians right to exist and self determination
Fortunately Robert Kraft has nothing to do with making what can generously be described as food. He’s CEO of a holding company and owns the New England Patriots.
I recall actually talking to him on Facebook at one point once over a decade ago. He was talking shit about single family homes. I can’t imagine I’ve ever had direct contact with a worse person.
I’m not here to argue. I’m just pointing out that, well, yeah. Single-family homes are fucking awful. They, and the suburban sprawl that accompanies them, are terrible for the environment and for society. None of this is particularly controversial, especially in an overwhelmingly leftist and not-car-brained space like the fediverse.
But we do have resources available right now to provide a home to every single family in the UK, it’s a matter of policy that we dont
Yes yes in a fair resource based economy we’d all be sharing resources equally and minimising our impact on the world, but that’s an opinion that should come from someone who doesn’t own several
It’s hardly any different where I’m from originally; Kraft makes a lot of money on real estate, so he’s not really worth agreeing with whatever your preferred non-radical housing reforms may be.
Sure, but apartments, row houses, duplexes, and other medium- or higher-density housing are just so much better for not just the environment but also for people than sprawling single-family homes. It’s easier to get around your city if more things are closer together. Especially good if it means you don’t have to drive everywhere, but can take an easy walk or bike ride or make use of fast efficient public transport. It’s also better for the government because the cost of maintaining roads, sewerage, electricity, and other infrastructure is greatly lessened. Better for people’s health because less driving means cleaner local air and healthier personal lifestyles. And once people aren’t driving as much they’re more likely to spend money in the local economy rather than driving to big (inter)national chain stores that take the money out of the local region. It’s really win-win-win all around.
But as I write this, I’m wondering if perhaps we’re just having a miscommunication? In the interest of clarity, when we talk about single-family homes, what we’re talking about is something like this:
A large, separated property with fairly large front and back yards and strips of usable space down either side, where the whole property is occupied by one family. It’s not including apartments, row houses, or townhouses, even though those are homes that could be occupied by a single family. It also doesn’t count duplexes, fourplexes, etc., which could be special-made as duplexes or converted from single-family homes by dividing down the centre.
Urbanists promote medium- and higher-density mixed-use housing, they don’t necessarily want to push multi-generational households or share houses (though for sure there are, separately, reasonable discussions to be had around that). I don’t know if perhaps that’s what you were thinking of? It certainly seems unlikely that the guy you were speaking to was genuinely an urbanist, from what else I’m reading about him. But as I glibly said at the start of this, it’s certainly possible, because even the worst people sometimes have a good opinion.
Is that for when he needed a good sex crime lawyer for getting caught up in the orchids of Asia sex trafficking sting?
They did a good job, and it’s totally preposterous that people say he paid off the ladies to tell the cops they weren’t trafficked after the fact. The cops simply realized they were mistaken once Kraft was involved. Why is that so hard to believe?
the funny thing about macklemore is that robert kraft is in the epstein files
Not having any idea what this meme was referring to, I could pretty easily make a good inference based on the format (Ed Sheeran taking a position on genocide by not taking a position on genocide).
However, this comment citing Robert Kraft’s inclusion in the Epstein files while name-dropping Macklemore—somehow in reference to Ed Sheeran and genocide—what did I miss?
He directly supported genocide by claiming holding a Palestinian flag hurt the feeling of a lot of people this is a denial, of palestinians right to exist and self determination
Kraft owns one of the venues Sheeran was scheduled to play at and pressured him to drop Macklemore.
Thank you! I thought Kraft was in Macklemore.
Edit: I have since learned Macklemore is a person, not a band, and I have been playing his music.
I think kraft is in cheese
Next album should be named Kraft, Mack, and Cheese it would be fire
Fortunately Robert Kraft has nothing to do with making what can generously be described as food. He’s CEO of a holding company and owns the New England Patriots.
No cheese in kraft
“Cheese”
I recall actually talking to him on Facebook at one point once over a decade ago. He was talking shit about single family homes. I can’t imagine I’ve ever had direct contact with a worse person.
Uhh, Macklemore, Kraft or Ed?
Or Epstein?
Kraft
Well, even terrible people can have good opinions sometimes.
Lot of people this week just straight up approaching me like “let’s argue”. No thanks, I’m already vibrating with stress and rage. 🫶
I’m not here to argue. I’m just pointing out that, well, yeah. Single-family homes are fucking awful. They, and the suburban sprawl that accompanies them, are terrible for the environment and for society. None of this is particularly controversial, especially in an overwhelmingly leftist and not-car-brained space like the fediverse.
But we do have resources available right now to provide a home to every single family in the UK, it’s a matter of policy that we dont
Yes yes in a fair resource based economy we’d all be sharing resources equally and minimising our impact on the world, but that’s an opinion that should come from someone who doesn’t own several
It’s hardly any different where I’m from originally; Kraft makes a lot of money on real estate, so he’s not really worth agreeing with whatever your preferred non-radical housing reforms may be.
Sure, but apartments, row houses, duplexes, and other medium- or higher-density housing are just so much better for not just the environment but also for people than sprawling single-family homes. It’s easier to get around your city if more things are closer together. Especially good if it means you don’t have to drive everywhere, but can take an easy walk or bike ride or make use of fast efficient public transport. It’s also better for the government because the cost of maintaining roads, sewerage, electricity, and other infrastructure is greatly lessened. Better for people’s health because less driving means cleaner local air and healthier personal lifestyles. And once people aren’t driving as much they’re more likely to spend money in the local economy rather than driving to big (inter)national chain stores that take the money out of the local region. It’s really win-win-win all around.
But as I write this, I’m wondering if perhaps we’re just having a miscommunication? In the interest of clarity, when we talk about single-family homes, what we’re talking about is something like this:
A large, separated property with fairly large front and back yards and strips of usable space down either side, where the whole property is occupied by one family. It’s not including apartments, row houses, or townhouses, even though those are homes that could be occupied by a single family. It also doesn’t count duplexes, fourplexes, etc., which could be special-made as duplexes or converted from single-family homes by dividing down the centre.
Urbanists promote medium- and higher-density mixed-use housing, they don’t necessarily want to push multi-generational households or share houses (though for sure there are, separately, reasonable discussions to be had around that). I don’t know if perhaps that’s what you were thinking of? It certainly seems unlikely that the guy you were speaking to was genuinely an urbanist, from what else I’m reading about him. But as I glibly said at the start of this, it’s certainly possible, because even the worst people sometimes have a good opinion.
Oh, I’m talking about this:
single-terraced house with a shop on the corner
What
Is that for when he needed a good sex crime lawyer for getting caught up in the orchids of Asia sex trafficking sting?
They did a good job, and it’s totally preposterous that people say he paid off the ladies to tell the cops they weren’t trafficked after the fact. The cops simply realized they were mistaken once Kraft was involved. Why is that so hard to believe?
Mark my words, Sheeran has the same proclivities
Bet