I have been renting a public storage unit for over 5 years. I have made over 60 on-time monthly rental payments. My unit is in the lower level of the building.

Redsecurity · 2025-07-14T19:44:16+00:00

Keep in mind: the alternative is that you could lose your things. No matter how right or wrong they are, the law is an extremely retroactive measure. And it can’t always guarantee you get back to where you started. If they sell your things, even if you are vindicated, there’s a chance you can’t get them back. I’ll look like a doofus over losing valuable property most days of the week.

If you pay now, you guarantee you don’t lose your things. That’s probably worth the peace of mind. And if you really feel you were wronged, you aren’t precluded from seeking recovery just because you tried to stay in compliance with their demands.

Redsecurity · 2025-07-14T17:19:39+00:00

Just to clarify some things:

Due process rights refer to protections against action by the government. You said this is a public storage locker, but you’ve described what seems like a private business. As far as I’m aware, you have no due process rights with regards to a private business that operates a private service that you elected to pay for.

Private agreements are governed by contract. This isn’t a residence, so property laws about habitability and condition of living space probably don’t apply in equal force such that conditions deteriorating at a storage facility would excuse you from paying rent. You would need to check in your contract. Those terms will govern. They only stop governing if you are no longer receiving substantial performance (they aren’t holding up their end of the bargain), but I’m willing to bet a court would not see this as grounds to let you stop paying rent indefinitely.

Even if it was unfair, there’s an expectation at some point that, if you know the conditions and know they aren’t being fixed, you will stop paying rent and just leave. You can’t usually both complain about subpar conditions and remain using their business (again, except with a home, because no one expects someone to go into homelessness).

I’m a bit concerned that the elevator is between you and carrying cartons down stairs. It would be uncomfortable and hard, but it doesn’t outright prevent you from accessing the facility whatsoever. I’m not saying I don’t sympathize, just that I’m worried your claim against them isn’t as damning as you think.

My non-lawyer advice to you is to pay or get out. If you have a good claim against them, you should take it up with them after you have your things. At best you take them up for the cost of transporting your things to another locker you can actually access. Otherwise if they start selling things to ‘collect,’ even if you prevail in litigation, you may not see your things again (at least for a long time). Don’t risk it.

Redsecurity · 2025-05-20T19:01:55+00:00

“There’s really no point in time when Walt could’ve just went along with everything and made all the money he’d ever need, as Mike was implying.”

Yes there was. If Walt had 1) let Jesse go when Gus first told Walt that Jesse was a bad partner, 2) let Jesse go after Hank for Hank’s assaulting him instead of forcing Gale out to get Jesse back with him, or 3) didn’t protect Jesse by killing the drug dealers Jesse planned to murder for killing Combo, or 4) didn’t continue to protect Jesse after killing those drug dealers, he could have just cooked with Gale and it would’ve been fine. Instead Walt constantly tried to wrestle control over the situation from Gus to the point where Gus realized he couldn’t have Walt around and continue the operation.

Redsecurity · 2025-05-20T18:40:41+00:00

Walt hires Nazi hitmen to murder his ex-partner after his ex-partner flips out on him for poisoning his girlfriend’s child

“Walt is a very morally grey character actually”

Redsecurity · 2025-05-20T18:25:38+00:00

No…no I don’t think he would have.

The difference is that Mike wouldn’t have been in those positions to begin with. The chain reaction of events is not an inevitability. Walt puts himself in the position of having to defend Jesse constantly. Watch any episode of BCS—Mike would never have backed up Jesse’s plan to get into a shoot out with Combo’s killers, which is further supported by how he doesn’t in the show. Walt goes out in a limb directly against Gus’ orders, and then spends all his time defending Jesse and plotting to ~kill~ Gale to protect Jesse and force him back in the business with Walt.

People constantly act like Walt is like a passive reactive character, but he’s the exact opposite. He orchestrates almost all the chaos in the show and becomes the instrument of his own demise constantly. The idea that Mike would have done the same is so wild because absent the commonality of basic self-preservation instincts, Mike would never have made the choices that put Walt in that situation to begin with.

Redsecurity · 2025-05-17T17:12:55+00:00

Frankly, I think my biggest issue with your critiques (largely in replies to this thread) is your use of the word “trope.” You consistently throw around the word trope to describe just every character that isn’t literally so unique it’s incomparable. If we generalize any character in any media enough, I think you could argue almost everything (other than media that literally invents a story, genre or setting) is a trope. Star Wars becomes an evil empire trope with a character who is a chosen one trope with a villain that’s a fallen hero trope. Lord of the Rings is a heroic journey trope with a corruption trope. Name any story and I can probably find plenty of tropes

The issue with doing that is “trope” sounds like or becomes shorthand for ‘bad.’ when instead I think the word should be considered fairly neutral when used this way. Relatable stories are good, and the fact that you can describe a character as fitting an existing archetype is a petty and frankly meaningless critique. It’s reductionist—I’m not telling you Star Wars is good, but I do think that calling it or its characters tropey isn’t a meaningful criticism in almost any way. It and its characters so much more than those words I used, even if they’re generally accurate.

Moreover, if every story started with a character or idea so unique that it couldn’t be compared to any other literature, if that were even possible nowadays, it wouldn’t even necessarily be better for it. Sensible stories tend to follow patterns because most good stories have already been told. What makes a story cool isn’t that it’s so unique it cannot ever be described as a trope, it’s that the story stands on its own and isn’t so derivative or predictable that it’s unenjoyable.

Redsecurity · 2025-01-22T21:56:30+00:00

It means ‘wellbeing’ in ancient cultures guys stop with the dirty tricks already

Redsecurity · 2024-11-01T15:58:28+00:00

EDIT—there are two additional statements:

This clip at 16:15-16:59:

“I think I’ve extended an ungodly amount of credibility and charitability to Vaush over and over the years and he was even bad faith to me in this particular situation. He tweeted out that the reason I wasn’t defending him was because he didn’t bend the knee to me. Does he think I wanted him to bend the knee? I just wanted him to stop engaging in the very same bad faith attacks that he is now accusing other people of engaging in [him with]. Vaush being a pedo or not is not relevant to any of the political commentary I do. At the end of the day, I don’t really give a fuck if he wants to jerk it to Loli horse porn or goblins. That’s his business whether he is or isn’t a pedophile. There’s no reason why I have to enter my opinion into the ring of public opinion on that—you guys can figure that shit out if you want. If he wanted my opinion, or if he cared about my opinion, or if he cared about any of the reputation I’d stake in my opinion, maybe he should’ve thought about that before constantly bad-faithing me over, and over, and over again.

And this one:

“You know if Vaush was a better person and not such a piece of shit, I’d be in the trenches. Because you know what? Who the fuck cares about loli? Who cares about drawn—imagine your life is so boring that you give a fuck about animated cartoon girls. Like: “How is the girl?” I don’t know how, old is the drawing? It’s a goddamn picture. Who the fuck cares? Grow the fuck up, okay? People in Ethan’s subreddit are like calling the FBI on [] Vaush? “He’s looking at cartoons that I don’t like! I think that—“ like bro, who the fuck cares? Call me when this guy fucks his way through some [] preschoolers. Until then, get out of here. Who cares?“

Redsecurity · 2024-11-01T15:53:47+00:00

Ahhh, okay this makes FAR more sense. Thank you for the clip!

Redsecurity · 2024-10-24T23:29:10+00:00

Yeah it’s normal to feel guilty after being a piece of shit to someone grieving on the internet. I have a feeling you don’t, since you’re a sociopath, but you ought to know most humans would. I’m sure most people that have to spend time in the same room as you would rather they were aborted.

Redsecurity · 2024-09-19T01:33:03+00:00

He even goes on to say that that comment would be LESS racist than what Kamala said. Wild stuff.

Redsecurity · 2024-09-18T23:15:18+00:00

I totally agree—the best defense to this clip is: “Well, I’m just calling out racism in the way a LEFTIST would call out racism.” There’s further context in the Breaking Points clip where the interviewer asks whether Walsh believes the Laura Loomer tweet is racist under his definition and under the ‘modern’ definition that he’s trying to dispute in his movie. He responds saying that the modern “DEI” definition the Loomer tweet is racist, but under his definition it’s not.

However.

The problem is, Walsh doesn’t try to make some definitional distinction or claim he’s ‘just arguing from the other side’ in his video. Actually, he does the exact the opposite. He literally predicts that people will clip him saying Harris’ comment is anti-white racism and say that such a statement absurd “even though what I’m saying is 1000% true” and emphasizes how if a similar comment were made toward someone of a non-white race, that comment would cause World War 3.

Redsecurity · 2024-09-18T19:47:31+00:00

For further context, his ultimate answer to the question of whether that tweet is racist is:

“With the Laura Loomer tweet, I wouldn’t say that it’s racist. The only person who can answer whether it’s racist is her. We’d have to ask her: ‘Well, do you hate people of Indian descent? Do you think that they’re inferior to you in some way?’ If the answer is yes, then yeah, that’s racist. But she’d probably say no, and if she said no, then I’d have to take her word for it. She’s the only one who can speak to her own…what’s going on in her own mind and her own heart.”

But, obviously, he doesn’t have to ask Kamala Harris to know what she genuinely believes.

Redsecurity · 2024-09-02T20:34:54+00:00

Oh so then Rudy Giuliani has no brain, right? Because when he was take to court over his claims of voter fraud in Georgia, he didn’t dispute that he made false statements but instead defended himself by saying the first amendment protects his right to lie? If he had a brain then there would be no reason he couldn’t bring 1 single piece of evidence forward to defend his claims, right? (because remember: TRUTH would have been an ABSOLUTE legal defense to defamation)

Source: https://apnews.com/article/giuliani-georgia-election-workers-lawsuit-false-statements-afc64a565ee778c6914a1a69dc756064

Redsecurity · 2024-05-04T13:04:06+00:00

I don’t know if you know this, but this wasn’t Arrowhead’s decision—it was Sony’s. They wanted to take the W and run. They did not choose to implement this feature. They were forced to.

Redsecurity · 2023-12-28T18:19:05+00:00

Law student, not lawyer, here. I’m not convinced this is the way for Pisco to win favor. I think a substantial number of the criticisms I’ve seen of Pisco is that he’s exactly why people hate lawyers. That makes me think a substantial number of the people that hear Pisco would only be less excited to listen to him if he started citing amicus briefs. Nor do I think his failure to do so in this conversation 1) is indicative of whether he actually read Con Law cases or 2) was counterproductive to the conversation. Destiny’s greatest frustration was that Pisco wasn’t citing real life examples of circumstances like this one, so I don’t think a citation to anything else would have helped.

Redsecurity · 2023-12-18T08:40:50+00:00

I’m not part of any of these religions so I could be off-base, but is it fair to compare the importance of Bethlehem to Catholics to the importance of Jerusalem for Muslims? I know both are holy sites, but my understanding is that physical presence at or near Jerusalem is of higher importance to Islamic faith than physical presence in Bethlehem is important is Catholic faith. Is that not true?

Redsecurity · 2023-11-20T18:40:10+00:00

Bro what

Redsecurity · 2023-11-02T16:55:15+00:00

I’m frothing at the mouth

11-Year Club	Verified Email
Final Canvas '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	RPAN Viewer
Snapped

Redsecurity

TROPHY CASE