3 ms·

What could a district mayor do?

by eu 5y ago

V-2 5y ago
Hopefully something meaningful and productive for the inhabitants of the city
- yreg 5y ago
  Renaming a street to make a political statement obviously doesn't prevent the municipality from doing something meaningful and productive for the inhabitants of the city. We don't live in a turn based strategy and the mayor did not spend her action. She doesn't have to wait for the next turn to do something else.
- kergonath 5y ago
  This is a fallacy. People can make more than one decision in a year. Particularly large cities' councils, which are tasked with running amazingly complex administrative and economic systems. So unless there are indications that other decisions were delayed or scrapped because they want to change the street name, this is irrelevant.
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    Resources are finite. One of the main resource limitations for leaders is time. This is a waste of the mayor's time.
    - yreg 5y ago
      You are assuming that had the mayor skipped this proposal (which sounds like very little work to me), she would have done something else for thew city instead. Real world doesn't work like that. If you are familiar with Bucharest municipal politics, by all means criticise that they are not doing a good enough job, or that they handled some things wrong. But without context it's nonsensical to attack someone the way you do. Perhaps the mayor is doing 10x better job than her predecessor and she proposed this name change in addition to that.
      - maest 5y ago
        > Perhaps the mayor is doing 10x better job than her predecessor and she proposed this name change in addition to that. Technically, the argument is that they are doing less work than their hypothetical counterpart who is identical in all respects, but did not spend time on making the name change proposal. Clearly this is almost nonfalsifiable, so a difficult argument to take seriously.
  - V-2 5y ago
    It's not a fallacy, unless you take it out of context. The context was as follows: the grand-grandparent comment pointed out that this change achieves nothing. The grandparent comment didn't challenge it, but asked rhetorically what [else] a mayor could do. This response implies that something had to be done (by the mayor) by definition, whether useful or not. And that's what's fallacious to me. Municipal entities aren't really actors in international politics, and when they try playing such a role, the results tend to be dubious. That's my opinion at least. As for your comment - that "people can make more than one decision in a year" - it, in turn, feels like a strawman argument to me, because noone said that they can't. There is still some limit, though (obviously larger than 1, but nevertheless finite), and renaming a street always comes at a substantial cost - both for the city and private entities. Cost associated with the need for changing street name signs, changing documents etc. Maybe that cost is worth paying, but an ad absurdum line of argument isn't something that could convince me of it.
    - kergonath 5y ago
      > It's not a fallacy, unless you take it out of context. The context was as follows: the grand-grandparent comment pointed out that this change achieves nothing. This is demonstrably false. The change sends a message, which is certain to be heard. It also signals a position to the local population. You can argue it is not much, but it is not nothing. I would say the effect seems proportional to the amount of time needed to take such a decision. The actual context was that the mayor should do something useful instead of doing this, which is fallacious as she can do both. > This response implies that something had to be done (by the mayor) by definition, whether useful or not. And that's what's fallacious to me. Well yes, it would be fallacious. That's why I did not make that point, and instead referred only to this specific decision. Note that I did not even say that it was a good decision, just that the premise that doing it somehow prevented them from doing something else was flawed. > Municipal entities aren't really actors in international politics, and when they try playing such a role, the results tend to be dubious. That's my opinion at least. Municipal entities do not exist in a vacuum. They are shaped by and react to national and international politics. Particularly capitals with embassies and stuff. In a context of increased nationalism and cultural tensions, these things are bound to happen, even though as you say it's not necessarily effective or useful. Changing street names for some political reason really isn't new or remarkable. > As for your comment - that "people can make more than one decision in a year" - it, in turn, feels like a strawman argument to me, because noone said that they can't. You should read the thread. Plenty of people are saying just that, and your comment implied it heavily in the context of the discussion. You seem to want to minimise the consequences and emphasise the costs of the decision. In reality, it does not do much, and does not cost much either.

What could a district mayor do?

by eu 5y ago

What could a district mayor do?

V-2 5y ago

Hopefully something meaningful and productive for the inhabitants of the city

yreg 5y ago
Renaming a street to make a political statement obviously doesn't prevent the municipality from doing something meaningful and productive for the inhabitants of the city. We don't live in a turn based strategy and the mayor did not spend her action. She doesn't have to wait for the next turn to do something else.
kergonath 5y ago
This is a fallacy. People can make more than one decision in a year. Particularly large cities' councils, which are tasked with running amazingly complex administrative and economic systems. So unless there are indications that other decisions were delayed or scrapped because they want to change the street name, this is irrelevant.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  Resources are finite. One of the main resource limitations for leaders is time. This is a waste of the mayor's time.
  - yreg 5y ago
    You are assuming that had the mayor skipped this proposal (which sounds like very little work to me), she would have done something else for thew city instead. Real world doesn't work like that. If you are familiar with Bucharest municipal politics, by all means criticise that they are not doing a good enough job, or that they handled some things wrong. But without context it's nonsensical to attack someone the way you do. Perhaps the mayor is doing 10x better job than her predecessor and she proposed this name change in addition to that.
    - maest 5y ago
      > Perhaps the mayor is doing 10x better job than her predecessor and she proposed this name change in addition to that. Technically, the argument is that they are doing less work than their hypothetical counterpart who is identical in all respects, but did not spend time on making the name change proposal. Clearly this is almost nonfalsifiable, so a difficult argument to take seriously.
- V-2 5y ago
  It's not a fallacy, unless you take it out of context. The context was as follows: the grand-grandparent comment pointed out that this change achieves nothing. The grandparent comment didn't challenge it, but asked rhetorically what [else] a mayor could do. This response implies that something had to be done (by the mayor) by definition, whether useful or not. And that's what's fallacious to me. Municipal entities aren't really actors in international politics, and when they try playing such a role, the results tend to be dubious. That's my opinion at least. As for your comment - that "people can make more than one decision in a year" - it, in turn, feels like a strawman argument to me, because noone said that they can't. There is still some limit, though (obviously larger than 1, but nevertheless finite), and renaming a street always comes at a substantial cost - both for the city and private entities. Cost associated with the need for changing street name signs, changing documents etc. Maybe that cost is worth paying, but an ad absurdum line of argument isn't something that could convince me of it.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    > It's not a fallacy, unless you take it out of context. The context was as follows: the grand-grandparent comment pointed out that this change achieves nothing. This is demonstrably false. The change sends a message, which is certain to be heard. It also signals a position to the local population. You can argue it is not much, but it is not nothing. I would say the effect seems proportional to the amount of time needed to take such a decision. The actual context was that the mayor should do something useful instead of doing this, which is fallacious as she can do both. > This response implies that something had to be done (by the mayor) by definition, whether useful or not. And that's what's fallacious to me. Well yes, it would be fallacious. That's why I did not make that point, and instead referred only to this specific decision. Note that I did not even say that it was a good decision, just that the premise that doing it somehow prevented them from doing something else was flawed. > Municipal entities aren't really actors in international politics, and when they try playing such a role, the results tend to be dubious. That's my opinion at least. Municipal entities do not exist in a vacuum. They are shaped by and react to national and international politics. Particularly capitals with embassies and stuff. In a context of increased nationalism and cultural tensions, these things are bound to happen, even though as you say it's not necessarily effective or useful. Changing street names for some political reason really isn't new or remarkable. > As for your comment - that "people can make more than one decision in a year" - it, in turn, feels like a strawman argument to me, because noone said that they can't. You should read the thread. Plenty of people are saying just that, and your comment implied it heavily in the context of the discussion. You seem to want to minimise the consequences and emphasise the costs of the decision. In reality, it does not do much, and does not cost much either.