Dude shaming his landlord on social media for illegally accessing his stimulus check records was actually going after his own grandma

[Sloppy Joe]

Because nobody gives a shit, and literally no one on earth with a life outside of the internet places an iota of value on consensus that arise from 'Facebook groups'.

This is clearly an issue that's deeply moving to you, but I guarantee that you obsess over it far more than the average person who leans left.

Hysteria over 50+ genders, anecdotes about three year old transgenders etc is trigger bait to rile up folks like yourself. You were fed similar things about gay marriage once upon a time.

Nobody on the board pushes back on the athlete thing and how much you care about the purity of women's sports, and we all roll our eyes when you regurgitate crazy looking trans woman stories that the right propagates to stigmatize transgender people. I believe Ben Shapiro was pushing this one, no?

Perhaps you'll get better engagement on your gender fixation from your cruise ship message boards?

Cliffs: Nobody here cares about this issue, and it's sad that you've been reduced to a Bottomset-range of subjects to post about.

Nobody on this forum gives a shit about making money?

If you and others really believed that most mainstream Democrats found these extreme transgender ideas to be ridiculous, I'd have people lining up to bet big money with me.

If these really are just "crazy trans woman stories" which most common Democrats see as absurd, surely most would vote the sensible way in the social media polls I'm talking about betting on, and you'd put a lot of my Jew gold in your bank.

Nobody takes this bet because deep down they know how stupid their own party is regarding this issue, and how it's infected mainstream Democratic thinking to be the norm nowadays.

Are these issues super-important in the grand scheme of things? No. But it shows how the left now struggles with its own large anti-science contingent, and is afraid to talk about it.

Identity politics rules over all else in today's Democratic Party. Remember when the coronavirus was first really ramping up in the US, and your lefty buddies were all expending energy and airtime crying about Trump calling it "The Chinese Virus"? Even Bill Maher had to smack down his own party over that one.

It's very cute how you really believe that you're part of a movement based upon rationality and science-based logic, though.

Read my post, snowflake. Most of us just don't care, and NOBODY cares about the proof you claim resides besides your internet groups. Nobody.

You may think that your various message boards are reflective of the world today, but I can assure you that day to day life for those of us with normal social lives just don't fixate on things like this.

I live in the most liberal city in America; the extent I think about transgender people is rolling my eyes at cutesie signs on bathroom doors. I have not had a single conversation about it beyond a diversity training at work.

Try striking up a conservation the next time you snag a second dinner at Hot Dog on a Stick.

It's obvious that you're looking to self-soothe with a pet issue as your party implodes around your lunatic, bleach-peddling president. We get it.

Take an extra swig of that mouth rinse and simmer down.

[blake]

druff, you're confusing the desire to not offend minority groups by most on the left with not believing in science.

note that even though you think this site is mostly leftists, and even in an anonymous forum, not one of them has argued that the guy whose picture you posted should be considered a woman. not one

the reason? most democrats don't actually believe that and those that do are complete morons.

the problem with the dems is that many of them just go out of their way to not offend anyone, even to the point of being completely douchy and annoying. the far left sjw's are just loathsome people.

but they make up less of the democrats than you think. if that wasn't the case, bernie would be the democrat candidate for president and wouldn't have gotten annihilated.

the comparison with the climate deniers on the right isn't a great one.

denial of climate change (and science) is actually affecting the US public policy and impacting the world. what is the comparison to this on the left? if there is one, i'm missing it.

[BetCheckBet]

You say "always" but this differentiation was made only semi-recently, and it only came into widespread use in the 2010s.

In 2000, if you told someone, "Sex and gender are different", they would have treated you like you were from another planet.

Here, take a look at this article from a the nonpartisan physiology.org site:

In the journals of the American Physiological Society, gender was first introduced into a title in 1982, whereas sex had been used since the early 1920s. It was not until the mid-1990s that use of the term gender began to exceed use of the term sex in APS titles, and today gender more the doubles that of sex. The term gender appears to have undergone appropriation by some scientists as a politically correct way to talk about sex. This may be because some scientists are sensitive to the verity that discussing sex often means discussing difference and gender may be construed as a less loaded term.

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/...iol.00376.2005

That article was written in 2005, and even acknowledges that it has "undergone appropriation by some scientists as a politically correct way to talk about sex". Thus, there is no scientific basis in the terminology. The difference in terms sprung from the SJW left which wanted a way to validate those who were transgender. The two terms were used interchangeably until the mid-2000s, and their separation was done to be sensitive, not due to any new scientific discovery.

Correct and as the article suggests some researchers are using the term improperly (most because they are snow flakes). Or simply because most social science articles ask participants to self identify gender. If you want to be in that boat go ahead but you are misusing the term just like the SJW you are up against.

I say this as a leftist but yes there is a difference between gender and sex But what do I know I only spent 10 years in university discussing this stuff.

[Crowe Diddly]

You say "always" but this differentiation was made only semi-recently, and it only came into widespread use in the 2010s.

In 2000, if you told someone, "Sex and gender are different", they would have treated you like you were from another planet.

OK, but guess what, we're trying not to live in the past (some of us anyway), we know what these words mean now, and you still choose to act like they mean the same thing.

You literally wrote "Gender is a scientific fact," then quoted an article from a physiological journal that clearly states otherwise. Here's the thesis of the article:

The purpose of this article is to publicize the necessity for implementing a standardized use of the terms sex and gender in physiology.

That's where they tell you that its actually important that these words are different. Right up front, in the first paragraph.

then your quoted article makes it pretty explicit:

Accordingly, it is imperative that scientists and editors come to a consensus on these terms to alleviate any confusion in their usage. These words have specifically different etymologies and meanings. In the most basic sense, sex is biologically determined and gender is culturally determined.

Tl;dr: gender is a social, not scientific, construct. Sex is biological.

[MumblesBadly]

OK, but guess what, we're trying not to live in the past (some of us anyway), we know what these words mean now, and you still choose to act like they mean the same thing.

You literally wrote "Gender is a scientific fact," then quoted an article from a physiological journal that clearly states otherwise. Here's the thesis of the article:

The purpose of this article is to publicize the necessity for implementing a standardized use of the terms sex and gender in physiology.

That's where they tell you that its actually important that these words are different. Right up front, in the first paragraph.

then your quoted article makes it pretty explicit:

Accordingly, it is imperative that scientists and editors come to a consensus on these terms to alleviate any confusion in their usage. These words have specifically different etymologies and meanings. In the most basic sense, sex is biologically determined and gender is culturally determined.

Tl;dr: gender is a social, not scientific, construct. Sex is biological.

Crowe, you’ve just successfully demonstrated that Druff suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect: He’s smart enough to recognize that he’s found and referenced a science-oriented publication, but does not have the reading comprehension to realize that it doesn’t support his argument.

[duped_samaritan]

Druff you might want to consider unbanning Tyde. I think you have a lot more in common with him now than back when he was banned.

[Dan Druff]

druff, you're confusing the desire to not offend minority groups by most on the left with not believing in science.

note that even though you think this site is mostly leftists, and even in an anonymous forum, not one of them has argued that the guy whose picture you posted should be considered a woman. not one

the reason? most democrats don't actually believe that and those that do are complete morons.

the problem with the dems is that many of them just go out of their way to not offend anyone, even to the point of being completely douchy and annoying. the far left sjw's are just loathsome people.

but they make up less of the democrats than you think. if that wasn't the case, bernie would be the democrat candidate for president and wouldn't have gotten annihilated.

the comparison with the climate deniers on the right isn't a great one.

denial of climate change (and science) is actually affecting the US public policy and impacting the world. what is the comparison to this on the left? if there is one, i'm missing it.

The people on the left on this forum (who do indeed outnumber those on the right) are self-selecting, so most of the SJW types never register here. My refusal to remove all the naughty epithets posted on this forum pretty much assures that.

Also, as we all get to know each other in what isn't a large community, there also becomes kind of a social pressure to fit in and not say things which will get you relentlessly mocked. So while it's currently "cool" on this forum to bash Trump and take certain left positions, you'd become a laughingstock and rarely taken seriously if you tried to advocate treating scruffy "Amber" as female.

In short, this forum's Democrats are not a good representation of the typical 2020 Democrat.

That's why I offered the bet to take these polls on a randomly chosen left-leaning social media group, NOT PFA. A large group like that is much better representation of the average Democrat than a small and niche place like this.

The hypocrisy I see here is amazing. Some arrogant leftist here will post a picture or video of some moron Republicans doing dumb things, and then imply they represent the entire party.

If I do the same regarding Democrats being stupid, it's dismissed as a "fringe element", "not the typical Democrat", or "a straw man".

Sorry, but it's a fact that the majority of Democrats have now been brainwashed into believing really stupid shit. I know a lot of you want to believe that you've chosen to be among fellow rational intellectuals when you vote "D" and make your leftist forum posts, but just know that much of your party believes in science as much as the rube conservatives you love to mock.

[nunbeater]

Druff, serious question: When did you become such a faggot?

[blake]

druff, you're confusing the desire to not offend minority groups by most on the left with not believing in science.

note that even though you think this site is mostly leftists, and even in an anonymous forum, not one of them has argued that the guy whose picture you posted should be considered a woman. not one

the reason? most democrats don't actually believe that and those that do are complete morons.

the problem with the dems is that many of them just go out of their way to not offend anyone, even to the point of being completely douchy and annoying. the far left sjw's are just loathsome people.

but they make up less of the democrats than you think. if that wasn't the case, bernie would be the democrat candidate for president and wouldn't have gotten annihilated.

the comparison with the climate deniers on the right isn't a great one.

denial of climate change (and science) is actually affecting the US public policy and impacting the world. what is the comparison to this on the left? if there is one, i'm missing it.

The people on the left on this forum (who do indeed outnumber those on the right) are self-selecting, so most of the SJW types never register here. My refusal to remove all the naughty epithets posted on this forum pretty much assures that.

Also, as we all get to know each other in what isn't a large community, there also becomes kind of a social pressure to fit in and not say things which will get you relentlessly mocked. So while it's currently "cool" on this forum to bash Trump and take certain left positions, you'd become a laughingstock and rarely taken seriously if you tried to advocate treating scruffy "Amber" as female.

In short, this forum's Democrats are not a good representation of the typical 2020 Democrat.

That's why I offered the bet to take these polls on a randomly chosen left-leaning social media group, NOT PFA. A large group like that is much better representation of the average Democrat than a small and niche place like this.

The hypocrisy I see here is amazing. Some arrogant leftist here will post a picture or video of some moron Republicans doing dumb things, and then imply they represent the entire party.

If I do the same regarding Democrats being stupid, it's dismissed as a "fringe element", "not the typical Democrat", or "a straw man".

Sorry, but it's a fact that the majority of Democrats have now been brainwashed into believing really stupid shit. I know a lot of you want to believe that you've chosen to be among fellow rational intellectuals when you vote "D" and make your leftist forum posts, but just know that much of your party believes in science as much as the rube conservatives you love to mock.

1) you ignored my point that the left bends over to not offend. that doesn't mean they don't believe in science.

it means the left has no problem looking like complete assholes (by giving their preferred pronouns on twitter for example) if it makes other people feel good about themselves. it's nauseating, but here we are.

political correctness is a real problem on the left.

2) the average person who would take the time to join a social media group for a political party are moron ideologues -- not your average member of a political party.

it would also completely fuck up the sample test group.

it would completely eliminate the majority of actual voters -- older people -- but overrepresent tech-savvy younger douchebags who have never worked, but also don't vote.

3) should we infer from your silence that you agree that the right's position on climate change denial is far more impactful than any "science denial" on the left?

[Dan Druff]

OK, but guess what, we're trying not to live in the past (some of us anyway), we know what these words mean now, and you still choose to act like they mean the same thing.

You literally wrote "Gender is a scientific fact," then quoted an article from a physiological journal that clearly states otherwise. Here's the thesis of the article:

The purpose of this article is to publicize the necessity for implementing a standardized use of the terms sex and gender in physiology.

That's where they tell you that its actually important that these words are different. Right up front, in the first paragraph.

then your quoted article makes it pretty explicit:

Accordingly, it is imperative that scientists and editors come to a consensus on these terms to alleviate any confusion in their usage. These words have specifically different etymologies and meanings. In the most basic sense, sex is biologically determined and gender is culturally determined.

Tl;dr: gender is a social, not scientific, construct. Sex is biological.

I'm not going to get caught up in SJW language, which is what this is. If an actual scientific discovery was made in the 2000s, and things changed, that would be different. Here, it just became an exercise in being sensitive. The whole concept of "culturally determined" gender is something new, and it's done based upon societal changes, not scientific discovery. Huge difference.

I actually do believe two things regarding transgender people which many conservatives don't:

1) There are people who are born with gender dysphoria, who are destined never to feel comfortable as the sex they were born (though some will grow out of it)

2) In some cases, the proper solution for these people is to transition, though this is difficult both physically and socially. These people should be treated respectfully and addressed as their new gender. There are two transgender people on my Facebook friends with -- both people I knew from the distant past -- and I refer to them by their new female names and the pronouns "she"/"her". Why? Because that's the respectful thing to do.

However, this doesn't contradict anything else I said. Transgender people have existed for several decades, and it's only recently that it's become cool and trendy to be trans, hence the ridiculous they/them/ze/zim pronouns, the 52 genders, and the "women" like Amber Saintly. It's overcomplicating something which should be fairly simple:

If someone reaches early adulthood and feels they cannot be happy as the sex they were born, then let them transition, and respect their new identity. The truth is that most real trans people just want to quietly live as the opposite gender and not make a spectacle out of it, but the SJW crew has co-opted it as a movement.

The problem with validating "sex" and "gender" being two different things is that it fuels the argument that you can be female just because you "feel" female, even if you don't take hormones and put zero effort into looking/acting female. That's how you get beautiful "females" like Amber Saintly, and you're expected to treat them as such.

Now, if the term "sex" was to represent what you're born as, and "gender" to represent what you live as (not how you "feel", but basically whether or not you've taken the steps to transition to the opposite sex), I'd be fine with that terminology.

[Dan Druff]

The people on the left on this forum (who do indeed outnumber those on the right) are self-selecting, so most of the SJW types never register here. My refusal to remove all the naughty epithets posted on this forum pretty much assures that.

Also, as we all get to know each other in what isn't a large community, there also becomes kind of a social pressure to fit in and not say things which will get you relentlessly mocked. So while it's currently "cool" on this forum to bash Trump and take certain left positions, you'd become a laughingstock and rarely taken seriously if you tried to advocate treating scruffy "Amber" as female.

In short, this forum's Democrats are not a good representation of the typical 2020 Democrat.

That's why I offered the bet to take these polls on a randomly chosen left-leaning social media group, NOT PFA. A large group like that is much better representation of the average Democrat than a small and niche place like this.

The hypocrisy I see here is amazing. Some arrogant leftist here will post a picture or video of some moron Republicans doing dumb things, and then imply they represent the entire party.

If I do the same regarding Democrats being stupid, it's dismissed as a "fringe element", "not the typical Democrat", or "a straw man".

Sorry, but it's a fact that the majority of Democrats have now been brainwashed into believing really stupid shit. I know a lot of you want to believe that you've chosen to be among fellow rational intellectuals when you vote "D" and make your leftist forum posts, but just know that much of your party believes in science as much as the rube conservatives you love to mock.

1) you ignored my point that the left bends over to not offend. that doesn't mean they don't believe in science.

it means the left has no problem looking like complete assholes (by giving their preferred pronouns on twitter for example) if it makes other people feel good about themselves. it's nauseating, but here we are.

political correctness is a real problem on the left.

2) the average person who would take the time to join a social media group for a political party are moron ideologues -- not your average member of a political party.

it would also completely fuck up the sample test group.

it would completely eliminate the majority of actual voters -- older people -- but overrepresent tech-savvy younger douchebags who have never worked, but also don't vote.

3) should we infer from your silence that you agree that the right's position on climate change denial is far more impactful than any "science denial" on the left?

Okay, then let's modify my claim to be, "The majority of social-media-using Democrats under 50 are anti-science". That's still pretty bad.

The "climate change denial" on the right isn't what you think it is. Most Republicans believe that there IS climate change, but that it's unclear whether it's man-made or not. These people are still referred to as "climate change deniers" by the left, which is incredibly dishonest. Even Republicans who DO think that climate change is man-made still have concern that corrective action taken by the US is mostly useless if huge polluters like China don't also buy in. They believe that anti-climate-change environmental regulations simply burden US industry, allow China to become far more competitive, and overall does little for the environment. Many anti-climate-change-legislation conservatives would change their tune if China were to go along with the same regulations at the same time.

It's a complex issue which goes far beyond a teenager lecturing everyone, "How dare you?"

But the left enjoys attempting to occupy the "moral, scientific" space while casting conservatives as a combination of callous, greedy assholes and dumb rubes.

[Crowe Diddly]

I'm not going to get caught up in SJW language, which is what this is. If an actual scientific discovery was made in the 2000s, and things changed, that would be different. Here, it just became an exercise in being sensitive. The whole concept of "culturally determined" gender is something new, and it's done based upon societal changes, not scientific discovery. Huge difference.

For the last time, it is NOT a scientific term, but even tho you know that already, for some reason you keep beating the drum about it, because it's new-ish to you, I guess? Even when you quote scientists who tell you it isn't a scientific thing but a cultural thing, you still say "but it's not scientific." NO SHIT, DUDE. THAT'S BEEN THE POINT THE WHOLE TIME.

The problem with validating "sex" and "gender" being two different things is that ...

Here's where I stop, say this one last time, and won't bother you again in this thread, because you won't admit the obvious.

They are 2 different things. The scientific community recognizes that they are 2 different things. The scientific paper you posted was explicitly written to make it extremely clear that they are 2 different things, and it defines why they are separate, and what each means. It wasn't just terms made up in the 2000s, it started being studied in mid-last century, and like a lot of new areas of knowledge, it took a while to hit the mainstream.

There's tons of things we didn't know about decades ago that we know a lot about now, and talk about in very different ways. This is no different. That's how knowledge works. It gets added on to. Things expand, meanings change, and the world goes on.

[dwai]

jeez when did Crowe diddly become a huge raging faggot

[Crowe Diddly]

jeez when did Crowe diddly become a huge raging faggot

hey, remember that time you added something positive to any discussion?

no? yeah, nobody else does either.

[dwai]

jeez when did Crowe diddly become a huge raging faggot

hey, remember that time you added something positive to any discussion?

no? yeah, nobody else does either.

You gonna cry hun?

remember when you won poster of the year, I bet you loved that, back before the TDS took over your life.

Sad!

[Crowe Diddly]

You gonna cry hun?

No, insults from morons don't really bother me.

[Sloppy Joe]

OK, but guess what, we're trying not to live in the past (some of us anyway), we know what these words mean now, and you still choose to act like they mean the same thing.

You literally wrote "Gender is a scientific fact," then quoted an article from a physiological journal that clearly states otherwise. Here's the thesis of the article:



That's where they tell you that its actually important that these words are different. Right up front, in the first paragraph.

then your quoted article makes it pretty explicit:

Accordingly, it is imperative that scientists and editors come to a consensus on these terms to alleviate any confusion in their usage. These words have specifically different etymologies and meanings. In the most basic sense, sex is biologically determined and gender is culturally determined.

Tl;dr: gender is a social, not scientific, construct. Sex is biological.

I'm not going to get caught up in SJW language, which is what this is. If an actual scientific discovery was made in the 2000s, and things changed, that would be different. Here, it just became an exercise in being sensitive. The whole concept of "culturally determined" gender is something new, and it's done based upon societal changes, not scientific discovery. Huge difference.

I actually do believe two things regarding transgender people which many conservatives don't:

1) There are people who are born with gender dysphoria, who are destined never to feel comfortable as the sex they were born (though some will grow out of it)

2) In some cases, the proper solution for these people is to transition, though this is difficult both physically and socially. These people should be treated respectfully and addressed as their new gender. There are two transgender people on my Facebook friends with -- both people I knew from the distant past -- and I refer to them by their new female names and the pronouns "she"/"her". Why? Because that's the respectful thing to do.

However, this doesn't contradict anything else I said. Transgender people have existed for several decades, and it's only recently that it's become cool and trendy to be trans, hence the ridiculous they/them/ze/zim pronouns, the 52 genders, and the "women" like Amber Saintly. It's overcomplicating something which should be fairly simple:

If someone reaches early adulthood and feels they cannot be happy as the sex they were born, then let them transition, and respect their new identity. The truth is that most real trans people just want to quietly live as the opposite gender and not make a spectacle out of it, but the SJW crew has co-opted it as a movement.

The problem with validating "sex" and "gender" being two different things is that it fuels the argument that you can be female just because you "feel" female, even if you don't take hormones and put zero effort into looking/acting female. That's how you get beautiful "females" like Amber Saintly, and you're expected to treat them as such.

Now, if the term "sex" was to represent what you're born as, and "gender" to represent what you live as (not how you "feel", but basically whether or not you've taken the steps to transition to the opposite sex), I'd be fine with that terminology.

Ya drink bleach and flood your insides with sunshine but ze/zhir and AOC and (googles '2018 conservative trigger issues') Christine Blasey Ford.

[ftpjesus]

Yeah, this has a lot to do with politics and "the left."

Actually, it does.

How many people on the left do you think were asking tough questions about this whole thing? Just about zero. Go through the Josh Browder twitter post and read the replies. When you find a skeptical reply, click through to the profile, and you'll see it's someone with right-leaning politics. Why do you think that is?

And why did the blue-check-mark "journalist" who brought this story viral hide from publishing these very relevant and important updates? Why wouldn't he then report that this "evil landlord" narrative was a hoax, and was actually just a bratty loser broke Antifa dude trying to sponge free rent off granny?

Does it not bother you that there's a completely lack of curiosity from your side when an "evil greedy business owner screws the little guy" narrative is presented?

There's a reason people on the right are so distrusting of the news these days. The update to this story about the grandma made the whole thing actually waaaaaaaaaaay more interesting, but the journalists who brought the story to light didn't want to touch it.

Much like the journalists who brought the (much bigger) story to light about the "Trump supporters" drinking fish tank cleaner because "Trump said to take chloriquine" refused to cover the (again more interesting) after-story that the wife actually hated Trump, and had domestic violence arrests in the past. Because, you know, it's better to believe that Trump followers are all dumb sheep who will drink literal poison because they think Trump told them to do it.

I always laugh when I see how afraid the left-leaning media is to cover the truth about something which will destroy a narrative they once presented. They wipe the egg off their faces when nobody is looking, and press forward.

We agree 99% of the time Druff but take out the remote family connection here and I’m betting you’d see it otherwise. Set aside he’s not paying Grandma. Plenty of people are indeed struggling in this economic climate that’s why many states including AZ here have shut down evictions and such and allowing people to put off payments temporarily due to the situation. Just because he has some biological connection to her doesn’t change the basis of the story in fact. Any landlord could’ve been shady like this potentially as most have their tenants SSN on file. What makes his situation any different then joe blow regular who is struggling. Now I’m not saying he doesn’t have to pay her. Fact is anybody who gets to put off those payments baring some legislative action is still going to have to pay on the backend be it rent or mortgage payments. If he has the money he would be better off paying because he will have to either way somehow or he can be evicted just like anybody else. Fact is Grandma or Joeschmoe she had no reason to invade the privacy of his finances period. I can’t believe your ok with that irregardless if he’s a leftist whacker or not. Certain things are inalienable and right to privacy is one of them. She can ask him to pay and I’m gonna guess he’s not the only one who hasn’t given the current situation for many. That’s the only problem I have in the whole situation. The fact the landlord is his grandmother should have zero bearing on the overall facts and read of the situation. I don’t judge a situation based on the politics of the victim or perp involved and nobody else should either and that’s what I feel is happening here.

One additional note. It appears landlord granny admitted she was willfully checking other tenants stimulus money payments as well and that alone makes this seriously concerning to me as I pointed above. She could legitimately get in trouble if she was using information she wasn’t entitled to which in this case she wouldn’t have been. It’s questionable under a few federal regulations in my book.

[JohnCommode]

Also who wants to bet me that if we find a left-leaning Facebook group chosen at random by a neutral third party, and posted the voting question of, "Should we treat Amber Pearl Saintly as female and allow her to be in women's jail/prison?" (see post #3 above), that 51% or more will vote YES? I'll take the 51%+ YES side, and you will take 49% or more will vote NO. Any takers?

Then we can do the same in a right-leaning Facebook group, and I'll make the same bet that 90% or more will vote NO.

So remind me... which party is anti-science?

I'm not sure that these "Democratic" scholars had finished all of their scientific research prior to advising state governments on their mandatory quarantine policies.

[TheXFactor]

We agree 99% of the time Druff but take out the remote family connection here and I’m betting you’d see it otherwise. Set aside he’s not paying Grandma. Plenty of people are indeed struggling in this economic climate that’s why many states including AZ here have shut down evictions and such and allowing people to put off payments temporarily due to the situation. Just because he has some biological connection to her doesn’t change the basis of the story in fact. Any landlord could’ve been shady like this potentially as most have their tenants SSN on file. What makes his situation any different then joe blow regular who is struggling. Now I’m not saying he doesn’t have to pay her. Fact is anybody who gets to put off those payments baring some legislative action is still going to have to pay on the backend be it rent or mortgage payments. If he has the money he would be better off paying because he will have to either way somehow or he can be evicted just like anybody else.

Fuck Grandma.

She doesn't need the money.

In California, you can get away with not paying the rent at least until the end of the year.

However, it will depend upon where you live and wither you have a Republican or Democratic Governor.

Arizona has a Republican Governor who will listen to landlords and will allow evictions to proceed as soon as possible.

Democratic Governors won't allow the eviction process to proceed for at least one to two years. If they let landlords start evicting people right now or even 6 months or a year from now, you would have millions of families out on the street.

Of course Republican Governors don't give a fuck about the people they only care about themselves.

Still even though landlords have no recourse, they are probably going to start threatening people to try and get the rent. They may threaten to start reporting you to credit bureaus. Not going to pay the rent? They will ruin your credit. I'm not sure if they can sue in court. Landlords cannot charge late fees during this pandemic. If you really want to pay the rent, put the money in the bank instead, wait until the Governor starts allowing evictions again. Then decide if you want to part with the money or pocket it and leave. The only reason to pay is because you want to stay where you are and you don't want an eviction on your record.