this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2026
688 points (95.0% liked)

General Memes & Private Chuckle

1035 readers
38 users here now

Welcome to General Memes

Memes for the masses, chuckles for the chosen.

Rule 1: Be Civil, Not CruelWe’re here for laughs, not fights.

  • No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
  • No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
  • Keep it light — argue in the comments, not with insults

Rule 2: No Forbidden FormatsNot every image deserves immortality on the memmlefield. That means:

  • No spam or scams
  • No porn or sexually explicit content
  • No illegal content (seriously, don’t ruin the fun)
  • NSFW memes must be properly tagged

If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can take care of it.

Otherwise consider this your call to duty. Get posting or laughing. Up to you

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] EtnaAtsume@lemmy.world 149 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

If this way of thinking became more widespread, all it would achieve would be the addition of child fees, not the removal of pet fees.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 30 points 3 months ago

I bet you could take it to court and get all those fees removed, since the precedent has already been set.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 127 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Apartments charging pet fees: 🫸

Apartments charging child fees: 🫸

Landlords being charged with crimes: 👍

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 3 months ago

Landleeches being charged at with the nearest blunt object: :3

[–] restingOface@quokk.au 79 points 3 months ago (5 children)

They would absolutely charge a "children fee" if they were legally able to.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] wolfrasin@lemmy.today 53 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Excuse me, but the bigger scam is the entire Landlord concept

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 months ago

Social housing, which is “owned” by the community as a whole, is the answer. Not only for people who are not yet ready to own, but also for housing in general.

Vienna is a prime model for this, where social housing is frequently much cheaper than ever owning a home. Most families that start out in social housing cling to it their entire life because it is just so much more financially responsible.

[–] DiabolicalBird@lemmy.ca 29 points 3 months ago (6 children)

This sounds like someone that has never seen what cats can do to a property when the owner doesn't take care of them.

Piss drenched carpet and moldy walls are a pain in the ass to fix.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 23 points 3 months ago (3 children)

You ever seen what half-arse parented kids will do? All of the above + holes and pest infestations

[–] forkDestroyer@infosec.pub 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

If you don't like what the kids can do, wait until you see what the grown-ups can accomplish.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DiabolicalBird@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago

I worked retail for many years and I consider children pests as well

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

That's how onr apartment of mine got flooded. Kid 2 floors up was playing with the plumbing

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ignirtoq@feddit.online 20 points 3 months ago (7 children)

I vaguely recall reading that such child fees would likely be illegal (in the US)? I think it might also be illegal to exclude families with children from being eligible to rent a given location. Don't quote me on either, though, because I don't have sources on hand.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 11 points 3 months ago

In Brazil is illegal for landlords or apartment buildings to charge or prohibit pets on their units. They are some laws around, like it should be as big as you can charge it on your arms, can't use the common areas unless designated pet areas and can't be loud at night.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's provincial here in Canada but I vaguely remember some building having a no child rule and then losing a court case when the strata tried to evict folks who ended up having kids.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I would love to live in that utopia. No children allowed in an entire suburb would be heaven.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] charonn0@startrek.website 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Fees for children would be illegal discrimination under fair housing laws.

[–] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 20 points 3 months ago (13 children)

They would charge extra if it was not illegal

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

They would make them dig coal if it was not illegal

[–] Rooster326@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago

This goes for everything...

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] BigDiction@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I once toured an apartment that charged pet fees and for dogs REQUIRED A DNA TEST so they could fine you for not picking up poop.

Someone out there is dna testing literal dog shit.

[–] MML@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No one is actually doing that, they're charging a fee to do nothing until someone complains enough that they'll send out a strongly worded letter hoping the person not picking up their dog poop will admit to it out of fear.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I lived in a complex that required such samples from dogs. They still never did anything about all the shit lying around

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago

Wholeheartedly support, I wish my apartment complex did that. Dog poop all over the place.

[–] Entheogen@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Last time I was charged a pet fee, I asked them "So if my wife gets pregnant, do we need to plan to pay extra on the rent?"

The leasing agent looked at me like I was crazy and said "Of course not, that would be ridiculous!"

And then she realized... Like I could literally see it flash across her face. She dropped it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] basxto@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Society rather wants people to have kids and not pets for self-preservation reasons

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 10 points 3 months ago

Encouraging renters to have kids is a rare long-term investment strategy by the landlord class

[–] drolex@sopuli.xyz 13 points 3 months ago (12 children)

Children are members of society. They're imperfect, but still. As other members of society, we have a duty to at least tolerate them.

I find it very sad that some people treat them like a different species. You wouldn't hear people say, without being countered, "I don't want to see old people" or "I don't want to have to interact with women". It's fucked up, you don't choose the other members of society.

[–] AbsolutelyClawless@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago (12 children)

I do agree with you as a childfree person who doesn't like children. Most of the time I blame/hate their parents instead. Like the parents of the kids upstairs. One of them has a "band". For the past year he's been trying to learn 3 songs almost every day in the evening. It's incredibly annoying to listen to this musically untalented kid when I'm tying to relax. Put some goddamned headphones on him, for fuck's sake.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

All it takes is one untrained dog with separation anxiety to chew through walls and tear trim off of door frames to trigger rules like this.

Or one elderly pet with severe incontinence peeing in the closest carpeted corner instead of the litter box.

With that said, children certainly have a much greater capacity for damage, especially when they get older. Infants? Not so much.

[–] Rooster326@programming.dev 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yes and what does that fee have to do with it?

Security Deposits are already double rent, and the entire legal system including property insurance still exists.

The $100/month isn't going anywhere except to profit.

[–] the_abecedarian@piefed.social 12 points 3 months ago

don't spread this pro landlord bs

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 12 points 3 months ago

Tough one. I've never wanted kids and my God are they so goddamn loud...

But, as more of my friends have kids I feel more and more for parents, it's damned tough to raise kids and finding housing, especially in my city is brutal.

Still, not like a fee helps anyone beyond the landlord.

[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago

Don't give them ideas

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 months ago

Just landlords gouging every cent.

[–] titanicx@lemmy.zip 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I have done a lot of residential work over the years a lot of sales work a lot of things where I've been in a lot of people's houses. Nothing smells worse than a person with cats who even goes a week or two without taking care of their litter box. And that smells sticks in everything. I have pets and I agree that a pet deposit is something needed because damn they do a lot of damage.

[–] usrtrv@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

But isn't that literally what the deposit is for? You don't just assume someone will have excess damage when renting.

And sure, have a higher deposit for pet owners. But why am I paying a monthly cat fee on top of a one time "non-refundable pet deposit".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How do you go a week without cleaning the litter box?!?

Having said that, my cats do do a fair amount of damage to the carpet and some doors with their claws, so an extra fee makes sense.

They also do a fair amount of damage to furniture; but that generally isn't the landlords.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›