What is an absurdity that has been normalized by society?Lanky_Pomegranate530@midwest.social to Asklemmy@lemmy.ml – 305 points – 1 years ago426Post a CommentPreviewYou are viewing a single commentView all commentsShow the parent commentIt was to show off wealth wayyyyyyy back in the day. It was a message that said "I have land and I don't need to farm it! I have peasants do that elsewhere." It was stupid then and it's stupid now, but HOAs enforce it for the Almighty Real Estate Value™®©Ironically, it's now a "sign of wealth" to live AWAY from the suburbs and their stupid lawns. Of course, you'll never hear people say we shouldn't demolish more nature for suburbs because "suburbs are for poor people" anytime soon.
It was to show off wealth wayyyyyyy back in the day. It was a message that said "I have land and I don't need to farm it! I have peasants do that elsewhere." It was stupid then and it's stupid now, but HOAs enforce it for the Almighty Real Estate Value™®©Ironically, it's now a "sign of wealth" to live AWAY from the suburbs and their stupid lawns. Of course, you'll never hear people say we shouldn't demolish more nature for suburbs because "suburbs are for poor people" anytime soon.
Ironically, it's now a "sign of wealth" to live AWAY from the suburbs and their stupid lawns. Of course, you'll never hear people say we shouldn't demolish more nature for suburbs because "suburbs are for poor people" anytime soon.
It was to show off wealth wayyyyyyy back in the day. It was a message that said "I have land and I don't need to farm it! I have peasants do that elsewhere."
It was stupid then and it's stupid now, but HOAs enforce it for the Almighty Real Estate Value™®©
Ironically, it's now a "sign of wealth" to live AWAY from the suburbs and their stupid lawns.
Of course, you'll never hear people say we shouldn't demolish more nature for suburbs because "suburbs are for poor people" anytime soon.