girlfreddyApr 21, 2024

Jordan van den Berg: The 'Robin Hood' TikToker taking on Australian landlords

https://lemmy.ca/post/19745059

Jordan van den Berg: The 'Robin Hood' TikToker taking on Australian landlords - Lemmy.ca

Three years ago, lawyer Jordan van den Berg was an obscure TikTok creator who made videos that mocked real estate agents. But today the 28-year-old is one of the most high-profile activists in Australia. Posting under the moniker Purple Pingers, Mr van den Berg has been taking on the nation’s housing crisis by highlighting shocking renting conditions, poor behaviour from landlords, and what he calls government failures. It is his vigilante-style approach - which includes helping people find vacant homes to squat in, and exposing bad rentals in a public database - that has won over a legion of fans. Some have dubbed him the Robin Hood of renters.

Show threadtsonfeirApr 21, 2024
I’m not sure if Robin Hood fits. He’s not stealing. Either way, fuck predatory landlords.
Show threadmke_geekApr 21, 2024
He’s encouraging squatting, which is stealing. He’s an awful person.
Show threadSchmooApr 22, 2024
The problem here is that you seem to value your own property rights over the right of individuals to have shelter. Sure, it’s not an ideal situation; in an ideal society “squatting” shouldn’t occur, but we live in a society where people are forced to choose between being homeless or squatting in someone’s property. If you think they should forgoe their right to shelter to preserve your right to property then you are the awful person.
Show threadmke_geekApr 22, 2024
No name calling on this sub. You are blocked.
Show threadguacupado

He called you an awful person.

After you called someone else an awful person. Or is it different when you’re just saying it behind someone’s back?

Apr 22, 2024 at 9:52pmWeb
Show threadmke_geekApr 23, 2024
Name calling. Blocked.
Show threadjordanlundApr 23, 2024

It was phrased as a conditional, they weren’t DIRECTLY saying the other person was awful, they were saying “people who do x are awful.” It leaves it open to the idea that the original commenter does not do x and is therefore not awful.

In YOUR case, yeah, calling someone awful breaks the civility rule.

Show threadSchmooApr 23, 2024

Does the rule only apply if they’re name-calling other commenters and not the subject of the article? If not then mke_geek’s original comment should be removed since he directly calls the subject of the article an awful person with no conditional.

Personally I think this rule is being a bit over-enforced and none of these comments should have been removed. Being overly strict with civility rules allows bad actors to take advantage of “civility politics” to shut down dissent.

Show threadjordanlundApr 23, 2024

Clearly stated in rule 5:

Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!