4 ms·

NIMBY’s are not Progressive. They’re practically the definition of Conservative. There’s just this wildly mistaken belief that CA (and SF in particular) is pop

NIMBY’s are not Progressive. They’re practically the definition of Conservative. There’s just this wildly mistaken belief that CA (and SF in particular) is populated by ultra-left people. The Bay is centrist at best.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>The Bay is centrist at best. If SF is centrist I want less than nothing to do with the whatever is left of it. I'm sure if you want to pick and choose an issue to use as your measuring stick you will find that a substantial chunk of people in SF do not have a far left position on an issue when a far left of center position hurts them personally. However, justifying exceptions to the rule when the rule is not in your self interest is pretty common. Fiscal conservatives don't complain when the government pisses money away on things they like. Commies will gladly redistribute all the wealth that isn't their personal wealth. Few people are so dedicated to their beliefs that they advocate against their own self interest. Edit: Is it the slight against SF or the observation about humanity that people don't like?
- drb91 8y ago
  SF is conservative in some ways, liberal in others, just like.... everything. However, if you look at the money in the area, it’s not hard to see how the culture will eventually clash with leftists.
- abritinthebay 8y ago
  Most of the rest of the developed world is to the left of SF. Especially Europe.
woah 8y ago
Yea, there are actually a range of political opinions among NIMBYs, from “new buildings will bring the wrong type of people into this neighborhood”, to “the free market doesn’t work and I will oppose any building which is not 100% government subsidized housing”. Many of the home owning NIMBYs profess the latter opinion , while actually believing in the former.
smsm42 8y ago
Judging by either election results or policies, completely false. Maybe it's just that they are so encased in the bubble that for them what they are is "centrist at best" because the actual right is pretty much extinct. California government has been effectively one-party for a while, despite the existence of conservative regions, but those are dwarfed by megapolis demography. Cities like SF or LA are even more monoculture. The last Republican mayor of SF has been in the 60s, and the right's electoral power in the area is comparable to the one of third parties like Libertarian on the national scale - i.e. completely powerless and inconsequential. Face it, the Bay is a political monoculture of the left now. Which means, the left also owns whatever happens there.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> NIMBY’s are not Progressive We could have a No true Scotsman [1] argument. Or we can talk about who considers whom else "in" their group, and what those groups call themselves. San Francisco's predominant economic and political block is homogenous in opposing new housing and calls itself progressive. (This pattern lines up with NIMBY policymakers in Seattle and New York City, too.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
- abritinthebay 8y ago
  Well no. Definitionally you can’t be progressive AND be advocating for the status quo. They’re in opposition to each other.
Dirlewanger 8y ago
They're socially liberal. Yet also calling them all economically conservative isn't quite accurate either since that's basically libertarian territory. Many SV nouveau-riche are definitely libertarian-leaning though.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

>The Bay is centrist at best. If SF is centrist I want less than nothing to do with the whatever is left of it. I'm sure if you want to pick and choose an issue to use as your measuring stick you will find that a substantial chunk of people in SF do not have a far left position on an issue when a far left of center position hurts them personally. However, justifying exceptions to the rule when the rule is not in your self interest is pretty common. Fiscal conservatives don't complain when the government pisses money away on things they like. Commies will gladly redistribute all the wealth that isn't their personal wealth. Few people are so dedicated to their beliefs that they advocate against their own self interest. Edit: Is it the slight against SF or the observation about humanity that people don't like?

drb91 8y ago
SF is conservative in some ways, liberal in others, just like.... everything. However, if you look at the money in the area, it’s not hard to see how the culture will eventually clash with leftists.
abritinthebay 8y ago
Most of the rest of the developed world is to the left of SF. Especially Europe.

woah 8y ago

Yea, there are actually a range of political opinions among NIMBYs, from “new buildings will bring the wrong type of people into this neighborhood”, to “the free market doesn’t work and I will oppose any building which is not 100% government subsidized housing”. Many of the home owning NIMBYs profess the latter opinion , while actually believing in the former.

smsm42 8y ago

Judging by either election results or policies, completely false. Maybe it's just that they are so encased in the bubble that for them what they are is "centrist at best" because the actual right is pretty much extinct. California government has been effectively one-party for a while, despite the existence of conservative regions, but those are dwarfed by megapolis demography. Cities like SF or LA are even more monoculture. The last Republican mayor of SF has been in the 60s, and the right's electoral power in the area is comparable to the one of third parties like Libertarian on the national scale - i.e. completely powerless and inconsequential. Face it, the Bay is a political monoculture of the left now. Which means, the left also owns whatever happens there.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> NIMBY’s are not Progressive We could have a No true Scotsman [1] argument. Or we can talk about who considers whom else "in" their group, and what those groups call themselves. San Francisco's predominant economic and political block is homogenous in opposing new housing and calls itself progressive. (This pattern lines up with NIMBY policymakers in Seattle and New York City, too.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

abritinthebay 8y ago
Well no. Definitionally you can’t be progressive AND be advocating for the status quo. They’re in opposition to each other.

Dirlewanger 8y ago

They're socially liberal. Yet also calling them all economically conservative isn't quite accurate either since that's basically libertarian territory. Many SV nouveau-riche are definitely libertarian-leaning though.