4 ms·

Marc may personally feel one way, and credit to him for writing that essay; his wife and family may have a different opinion, and in families, compromises are a

by abhv 4y ago

Marc may personally feel one way, and credit to him for writing that essay; his wife and family may have a different opinion, and in families, compromises are a norm. The letter was signed first by Laura.

tfehring 4y ago
It was also signed by Marc. It would be perfectly fine for him and his wife to have a difference of opinion, but if Laura holds a view that Marc holds to be actively harmful, as he has argued in the past, it's still hypocritical for him to endorse that view. Though I think it's more likely that Marc is just the more typical "Yes In Your Backyard" kind of hypocrite.
plicense 4y ago
Or they just went with Alphabetical order when signing the letter? Order doesn’t mean much to be honest in this context - you don’t put your name on the letter unless you really agree with what’s on the letter. Now it maybe possible that Marc never co-signed this in which case he will speak out hopefully and explain his stance better.
- wahern 4y ago
  > Or they just went with Alphabetical order when signing the letter? The letter starts out, "I am writing". A spouse will usually use "we" when contemporaneously speaking for both themself and their partner. > you don’t put your name on the letter unless you really agree with what’s on the letter. Now it maybe possible that Marc never co-signed this in which case he will speak out hopefully and explain his stance better. Also possible his wife included his full name for the cachet without first asking, but upon finding out Marc decided this wasn't a hill he wanted to die on. He wouldn't have been the first spouse to make that choice. The letter would evince the fundamental problem with NIMBYism even if Marc didn't willingly sign on--people who oppose projects are typically far more aggressive and outspoken than those accepting of new development, who tend to be more passive; and this dichotomy and one-sided paralysis manifesting between members of the same household only makes the contrast more stark. It's far more important that people appreciate that dynamic, whether it existed in this case or not. There's absolutely nothing new about people being hypocritical, and righteous indignation about hypocrisy, however sweet, doesn't lead to people affirmatively advocating for development, or any other policy for that matter. People will relinquish veto power not as a consequence of others' hypocrisy, but when they realize and accept that they, themselves, are not up to the task of counteracting NIMBYs, and the only practical alternative is to make their own, personal sacrifice (i.e. relinquishing a not insubstantial measure of power and control) for the greater good.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by abhv 4y ago

tfehring 4y ago

It was also signed by Marc. It would be perfectly fine for him and his wife to have a difference of opinion, but if Laura holds a view that Marc holds to be actively harmful, as he has argued in the past, it's still hypocritical for him to endorse that view. Though I think it's more likely that Marc is just the more typical "Yes In Your Backyard" kind of hypocrite.

plicense 4y ago

Or they just went with Alphabetical order when signing the letter? Order doesn’t mean much to be honest in this context - you don’t put your name on the letter unless you really agree with what’s on the letter. Now it maybe possible that Marc never co-signed this in which case he will speak out hopefully and explain his stance better.

wahern 4y ago
> Or they just went with Alphabetical order when signing the letter? The letter starts out, "I am writing". A spouse will usually use "we" when contemporaneously speaking for both themself and their partner. > you don’t put your name on the letter unless you really agree with what’s on the letter. Now it maybe possible that Marc never co-signed this in which case he will speak out hopefully and explain his stance better. Also possible his wife included his full name for the cachet without first asking, but upon finding out Marc decided this wasn't a hill he wanted to die on. He wouldn't have been the first spouse to make that choice. The letter would evince the fundamental problem with NIMBYism even if Marc didn't willingly sign on--people who oppose projects are typically far more aggressive and outspoken than those accepting of new development, who tend to be more passive; and this dichotomy and one-sided paralysis manifesting between members of the same household only makes the contrast more stark. It's far more important that people appreciate that dynamic, whether it existed in this case or not. There's absolutely nothing new about people being hypocritical, and righteous indignation about hypocrisy, however sweet, doesn't lead to people affirmatively advocating for development, or any other policy for that matter. People will relinquish veto power not as a consequence of others' hypocrisy, but when they realize and accept that they, themselves, are not up to the task of counteracting NIMBYs, and the only practical alternative is to make their own, personal sacrifice (i.e. relinquishing a not insubstantial measure of power and control) for the greater good.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]