3 ms·

> You’re saying that what progressives championed in the early 1900s, and continue to support is conservative. It doesn’t make much sense. Why doesn’t it make

> You’re saying that what progressives championed in the early 1900s, and continue to support is conservative. It doesn’t make much sense. Why doesn’t it make sense? Political progressives and older land-owning (relative) conservatives have different reasons for opposing upzoning, but they clearly do agree in their opposition to it. Beyond that, I specifically called out that these terms are overloaded and I’m trying to be relatively explicit about what I mean when I use them. I’m not interested in arguing for positions I never took, e.g. that “the conservative movement never really had much to say about housing policy”. I’m not talking about any movement—I’m talking about people who are, fundamentally, conservative. They may be granola-chomping, Smartwool-and-Birkenstock-wearing, Prius-driving, ex-hippie boomers who’ve never voted GOP in their lives, but if they own land and oppose upzoning because they don’t want their single family home neighborhoods to change, then they are, in a sense (to be clear, the same sense I’ve been talking about this whole time), conservative.

nickff 6y ago
It seems to me that you (and the article) are re-defining terms willy-nilly for reasons I can't quite discern. Why not just use terms as they're generally understood, instead of encoding your ideas?
- caconym_ 6y ago
  These are very overloaded words, which you will understand if you look them up in a dictionary. If you do, you will also see the definitions I’m using—nobody is “re-defining” anything. I am simply using these words because they mean what they mean, and not trying to make some broader “encoded” point about politics or whatever else. If you choose to ignore the intended meaning of my comments (which I have more or less spelled out for you at this point, no contextual awareness required), that’s not my problem, and I’m not going to follow you down that rabbit hole. edit: If there is one political point I am sort of getting at, it’s probably the hypocrisy of older self-identified “liberals” who oppose densification/upzoning. Viewed through either a classical liberal or a left-liberal lens, using regulation to block affordable housing is not good, yet a lot of these people support it because they’re the beneficiaries of the status quo. And that, in a sense, is the attitude at the core of practical conservatism.

nickff 6y ago

It seems to me that you (and the article) are re-defining terms willy-nilly for reasons I can't quite discern. Why not just use terms as they're generally understood, instead of encoding your ideas?

caconym_ 6y ago
These are very overloaded words, which you will understand if you look them up in a dictionary. If you do, you will also see the definitions I’m using—nobody is “re-defining” anything. I am simply using these words because they mean what they mean, and not trying to make some broader “encoded” point about politics or whatever else. If you choose to ignore the intended meaning of my comments (which I have more or less spelled out for you at this point, no contextual awareness required), that’s not my problem, and I’m not going to follow you down that rabbit hole. edit: If there is one political point I am sort of getting at, it’s probably the hypocrisy of older self-identified “liberals” who oppose densification/upzoning. Viewed through either a classical liberal or a left-liberal lens, using regulation to block affordable housing is not good, yet a lot of these people support it because they’re the beneficiaries of the status quo. And that, in a sense, is the attitude at the core of practical conservatism.