• GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You realize you are speaking from a very lucky position right? Everyone here agrees quiet apartments with clean facilities are pretty nice, but a large majority of apartment dwellers live in older, very noisy, very poorly managed facilities.

    It’s very fair to want the conversation on improving apartments, it is super important. But you.have to acknowledge that people’s response about their apartment history is informed from lived experience.

    • biddy@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not luck. Things are built for a reason, the regulations and structures of society are designed, and it artificially dictate s what is built. Perhaps they live in a place where the regulations mean that sensible livable apartments are fairly abundant. Perhaps you don’t. That’s not luck, those places were designed that way.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The homie was pooped out in a place where it was possible, and that was luck.

        • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I was born and raised in suburbia and only moved into where I am now. It is indeed partially luck that I had the capability and opportunity to move to a new city that has abundant apartments, missing middle housing, and a sane rental market. As a result of the abundance of apartments available, landlords have a credible threat of vacancy, and thus rents are lower, there are fewer restrictions (e.g., pet restrictions), and having decent sound insulation is common.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the phrase “lived experience” should automatically disqualify someone from speaking about any topic. They’re just anecdotes, usually in contradiction to actual data.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ok?

        So for example the “lived experience” of black folks in the southern US in the 60s isn’t valuable I’m the discussion of racism in America? Of course it is. Their first hand experience (indeed anecdotal as you say) is meaningful.

        In the context of apartments, especially in America, millions of units are no where near the soundproofing or quality OP was describing. You could determine that by age of the buildings alone.

        Do you have sound dampening data for apartments across the country?

        Anecdotes are only problematic when they are purported as data. By definition someone relaying their lives experience suggests they are describing their individual life to you. It’s fine to want to move from anecdote to data, but when you talk about “disqualification” from discussion you’re just being a gatekeeper. There is no data rigor here, this is a message board about a meme.

        Lastly the person I responded to described THEIR lived experience (the quiet apartment they have) so that further insulates myself and others from any objective requirements to comment.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          So for example the “lived experience” of black folks in the southern US in the 60s isn’t valuable I’m the discussion of racism in America?

          When their “lived experience” is “no, I’ve never seen any racism!” then no, it’s not really valuable, and it’s incredibly suspect to boot.

          It’s fine to want to move from anecdote to data

          Let’s just start with data. Anecdotes are supplementary. The way “lived experience” is usually used (and is used here) is to provide the primary support to an argument.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Again you’re expecting a rigor beyond the venue of discussion, especially given that the person I replied to started with an anecdote as well.

            If you have data on the soundproofedness of apartments across the US to contextualize the common consensus to the level you expect I would be happy to browse it.

            Until then I’m comfortable believing anyone (as in the many commenters here) who say their apartment was loud. The several I lived in were as well so I have no reason to question it

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              you’re expecting a rigor beyond the venue of discussion

              Maybe, but I’m trying to change that. I think we can all be smarter than just trading anecdotes.

              And your post emphasizes my point. We’re talking about a preferred hypothetical society, while the point he was trying to make with his anecdote is that apartments are and always will be poorly soundproofed, world without end. Obviously it sounds absurd when you extrapolate it out to the societal level, but when you couch it in anecdotal terms it makes the argument seem worth discussing on the face of it. It’s not.

              We can talk about how currently apartments are shoddy in the US, that’s a worthwhile discussion. But to be against the idea of apartments in general because apartments right now are poorly regulated is silly.