3 ms·
At the same time he is doing neither of these things. It's hard to make the case that something that you find subjectively visually unappealing is the same as a
by tedks 10y ago
At the same time he is doing neither of these things. It's hard to make the case that something that you find subjectively visually unappealing is the same as a pollutant or allergen.
Though, even under those circumstance, how would you feel if you were a beekeeper who had carefully curated and bred your hives for years, you moved, and all of a sudden your bees, whom you see as lovely helpful animals going out and literally making flowers bloom every day, are ordered destroyed because your neighbor has an allergy? Ownership isn't a free pass to do whatever you want, but it's equally false to imply that nobody has any ability to assert their own interests, or as is the case here, novel ideas over the status quo.
I think ownership really does make a big difference here because if he were just dumping a container into a park because he can afford a shipping container and moving it to a park, that'd be very clearly dickish. If he built a wooden gazebo after buying the lot with lots of hostile armrests so that the homeless couldn't shelter there, nobody would care at all and the neighbors would probably love it. It seems like he's done a slightly more flamboyant and slightly more humane version of the gazebo. Putting glass in the windows was a bad move from the start, but they're probably better as shutters or open-air anyway. In a year, it probably wouldn't be bright red at all, because local graffiti artists would have covered it larger pieces and it would look exactly as the community of humans using the parkspace dictated. (Assuming he doesn't just paint over the graffiti, which would truly be a dick move.)
- rosser 10y ago> It's hard to make the case that something that you find subjectively visually unappealing is the same as a pollutant or allergen. The same, no. But on the same spectrum — namely, a property owner acting unilaterally, his neighbors' concerns be damned — absolutely.
- tedks 10y agoIs the entire range of action that ends in asserting one's own volitions over another's so reducible? What makes this "unilateral" besides there being opposing interests? This isn't even always (maybe not even typically!) wrong -- if the Westboro Baptist Church moved next door to me it's not like I'd be wrong in acting unilaterally, my neighbors' concerns be damned, in say flying a pride flag.
- rosser 10y agoWhat makes it unilateral is that he's the one making an incursion here. A more apt parallel would be the WBC moving into your neighborhood and having people march up and down the block, 24/7, with "GOD HATES FAGS" placards. Do you legitimately think that's not thumbing their noses at their new neighbors? Do you actually believe that the neighbors – you know, the folks who were there first — have no choice but to suck it up? "Welp, they bought the house and moved in. Nothing to be done about it now."
- tedks 10y agoOkay, replace the WBC with a proud gay couple in an intolerant area. Should the people who were there first suck it up in that instance?
- rosser 10y agoI guess that depends on how you define "suck[ing] it up". If you mean "not assault or harass their new neighbors, or vandalize their property" or anything like that, then absolutely yes. If, on the other hand, you mean suddenly dropping over for tea and scones of a weekend morning, or fruity pink drinks after work, then no, I don't think they're obligated to "suck it up". Their neighborhood, from their perspective, has just been "invaded", and they have a legitimate right to feel aggrieved by that, right or wrong, bigotry or not, assholery or otherwise. Just like the folks in Lincoln Heights have a right to feel aggrieved by Rhinehart's ugly, unmaintained container — except, of course, that the gay couple didn't break any laws. (Just a few years ago, they might have, depending on jurisdiction, but since Lawrence v. Texas, there isn't even that; it's just confrontational, and possibly even rude.)
- tedks 10y agoI guess if you think a gay couple flying a pride flag is confrontational or rude, we have significantly different opinions to the extent that we can't come to any consensus on this or similar issues. I'm also doubtful that the gay couple truly hasn't broken any laws. I'm sure that with enough digging, the homophobic neighbors can find a fence on the wrong side of the property line, a deck that isn't zoned properly, or something similar; the neighbors could even pass a HOA regulation prohibiting pride flags. Does that make it morally justified, because it's "their" homophobic town? It seems like you think so.