Yet another way that telecommunications have ruined the world. Can't intimidate some semisentient business casual wear headquartered in Franktown, CO and located fuck knows where
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
767 points (99.5% liked)
A Comm for Historymemes
2339 readers
1314 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
Banner courtesy of @[email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"bid starts at X amount" is something they were too stupid for?
So, nobody bids, bank still has land they can't use and no money, auctioneer gets shot in his sleep.
Would never work today, of course. Redfin or Zillow would take any offer.
Pressure to do the human thing is way harder to apply to the people making the decisions are far away and when they can hide behind faceless corporations answering to faceless investors that are also far away.
It can be done, and it has been done, but it's not really a practical long term solutions to a systematic problem.
Starting amounts don't apply when you have a mob of farmers willing to kill you if you don't take the 50 cents.
If you tried that today, someone online would come in and buy up that property. We have no defense against monetary predators like we used to.
Sure we do. We just need a lot more of this:
Come on down and check out your new property!
Strange, ever since that oligarch brought that land it keeps catching fire.
~~someone~~
A multi billion dollar conglomerate you mean.
Pretty much this. Penny auctions worked because you had to physically be in the room, which means it's far easier for your friends and neighbors with guns and other implements of violence to tell the bank rep "hey maybe you should sit this one out bud" when they show up.
You know, because of the implication.
Mac: “It’s foolproof, dude!—nobody’ll bid when see my sweet ninja moves!”
Charlie: “Yeah, and I’ll huff some paint to really sell the unhinged vibe!”
Dee: “How will that help?”
Dennis: “Because, Sweet Dee… of the implication.”
"Are these bidders in any danger?"
"Yes"
load more comments
(4 replies)
I'd think banks probably just have a reserve price these days (a minimum price they'll accept on the property).
"In other news an auctioneer was beaten to death by a mob of farmers today after not accepting a bid."
We're gonna need more Luigis!
Exactly. Auctions usually have a starting bid.
I wonder if there were times when someone was a terrible neighbour and the nearby farmers just refused to help. Like, say some dude who got drunk and didn't take care of his land so he had pests who infested nearby farms. Or he borrowed equipment from the neighbours and didn't return it, or returned it broken.
Imagine an auction like that where a guy thinks his neighbours are going to prevent people from bidding, but instead they bid to take his farm because they hate him so much.
Reminds me of that case of the guy getting murdered in broad daylight, and every eyewitness saying they saw nothin'
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy
Imagine being such a piece of work that several dozen people independently decide not to help with your murder investigation... ~~and still managing to find a wife~~
Of course that story is awful too, I should have guessed
and still managing to find a wife
Um... Well, he didn't exactly "find a wife" in the way most people do.
He met his last wife, Trena McCloud (1957–2012), when she was 12 years old and in eighth grade and he was 35. He raped McCloud repeatedly. McCloud's parents initially opposed the relationship, but McElroy threatened them into agreement by burning down the house and shooting the family dog.
"Relationship" is doing a LOT of heavy lifting there.
I suspect it was a small enough community that they could deal with those people without much problem.
A naive libertarian might see the anti-competitive auction as fair.
Someone with awareness of history might note the unfair laws which led to banks wresting land from farmers. Then realize that nothing was fair.
“Hey I’ve got the papers, whether it is just or legal really isn’t my problem and I’m sorry for your situation anyway give me the farm.”
“Hey be that as it may the whole community has decided that whoever takes this farm is going to get hit with a bunch of ax-handles.”
“Unfair, injustice”
Lol. Lmao, even.
Unfortunately, banks plan for this tactic anymore.
That's a very weird way to try to use "anymore".
the fact that you don't have a positive version of anymore except for approximations like nowadays is the problem. other languages have a word for "from a certain point on" that can be used in both positive and negative sense.
you have no longer which also functions like anymore but I can't think of an opposite for that either.
from now on is the only thing I can think of that can be used in both senses but that's only useful for specific times (you could say from then on too, but the then has to be specified).
there's clearly a need for it so people use anymore in a positive sense. why not.
Would "since then"be a certain point on?
yes but the thing about anymore is that the "certain point" isn't specified. "people don't do this anymore" could mean they stopped yesterday or 500 years ago. it's not even necessarily relevant. to be able to say "since then" you need to know when "then" is in the first place.
The problem isn't the word, it's grammatical.
I'm not explaining this with proper terms as it's my first language and didn't pay attention in class as a kid but: Anymore is negative, but the verb itself needs a negating adverb. In english the correct phrase is:
Unfortunately, banks plan for this tactic now.
Which isn't an approximation. "Now" in context means exactly "from a certain point on", and is the positive version.
To grammatically use "anymore" you need to change the wording/structure altogether, and add negation:
Unfortunately, the tactic doesn't work on banks anymore
Alternatively, changing the meaning altogether for the sake of grammar:
Unfortunately, banks don't plan for this tactic anymore.
To highlight why it's wrong, I just use the example of asking if the store has widgets in stock, and the clerk says, "We have any." (Compare to, "We don't have any.")
But your example has a glaring flaw! What if the widget store did indeed stock every widget? An excellent boast in that case.
load more comments
(5 replies)
"After that" "Now" "In current day" "That doesn't work anymore, as banks plan against it"
What about have since? “Banks have since planned for this tactic”
I guess it still implies a specific time/event, but maybe it’s a little less clunky than “from then on”
no the use of participle makes the time non-specific, and it's a good alternative. it just changes the sentence altogether. I was trying to address the need for using a word exactly the way you would use anymore but for positive sentences. someone suggested "now" which is pretty close but I think doesn't work in all cases.
"Since then," "thenceforth"
nope. both specific.
banks plan for this tactic since then / thenceforth
doesn't work
That's because, in English, that tense should actually be "banks have planned". It doesn't make these options any less correct. If you want to use "banks plan", just put "now"
The idealized formulation of this sentence would be "thenceforth, banks planned for this tactic", "since then, banks have planned for this tactic", or "banks plan for this tactic now"
Banks do this fuckin tactic now
load more comments
(1 replies)
Now every property bid has a hold and its a waste of everyone's time.
view more: next ›