5 ms·

Personalizing helps highlight the hypocrisy of wealthy, influential people like Andreesen. I agree that the post was right, but it discredits the author when t

Personalizing helps highlight the hypocrisy of wealthy, influential people like Andreesen. I agree that the post was right, but it discredits the author when they act so diametrically opposed to the words they write and, specifically, the action they call for. Did he not mean those words in earnest? Is there some other play he is angling for? It begs everything to be questioned.

tptacek 4y ago
I'm not sticking up for him! I think that's pretty apparent from my comments on this thread (this is one of my hobbyhorse issues). I'm just saying, in this particular situation, Andreessen is behaving like the overwhelming majority of suburban homeowners.
- adamwk 4y ago
  I think the semantics of NIMBY got lost recently where I’ve read tweets about YIMBY’s who are against building that effects them. People forgot the acronym NIMBY refers to people in favor of liberal policy until it affects them.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    NIMBY transformed long ago into referring to people who don't want to live in the shadow of massive condo complexes with no parking.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > like the overwhelming majority of suburban homeowners But he's not like the overwhelming majority of suburban homeowners; he owns mansions.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    Most suburban homeowners will vote against anything that they believe will reduce their home values. It doesn't matter if their home value is $200k or $200M. Same result. You'd actually think that a multibillionaire who owns a mansion would be less sensitive to fluctuations in home values, since their wealth is usually contained in other assets (unlike the average American homeowner, for whom their home is likely where the majority of their net worth is). If Andreessen were to accidentally light $200M of his own cash on fire, he'd come through it, lifestyle unscathed.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      Well, I'd have expected that most suburban homeowners are planning to stay put for a while (i.e. they're not renters). So I'd expect them to value the health of the neighbourhood over property values. Where I live, property is expensive, and I live in a neighbourhood that seems to be dominated by investment property; many empty properties or short-let properties. There are no kids here, even though the neighbourhood would be fine for kids. Anyway, that's apparently not the way the cookie crumbles; owning property so you can live in it seems to have become unfashionable. I hope the fashion changes, because I have no plans to sell.

tptacek 4y ago

I'm not sticking up for him! I think that's pretty apparent from my comments on this thread (this is one of my hobbyhorse issues). I'm just saying, in this particular situation, Andreessen is behaving like the overwhelming majority of suburban homeowners.

adamwk 4y ago
I think the semantics of NIMBY got lost recently where I’ve read tweets about YIMBY’s who are against building that effects them. People forgot the acronym NIMBY refers to people in favor of liberal policy until it affects them.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  NIMBY transformed long ago into referring to people who don't want to live in the shadow of massive condo complexes with no parking.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
denton-scratch 4y ago
> like the overwhelming majority of suburban homeowners But he's not like the overwhelming majority of suburban homeowners; he owns mansions.
- kelnos 4y ago
  Most suburban homeowners will vote against anything that they believe will reduce their home values. It doesn't matter if their home value is $200k or $200M. Same result. You'd actually think that a multibillionaire who owns a mansion would be less sensitive to fluctuations in home values, since their wealth is usually contained in other assets (unlike the average American homeowner, for whom their home is likely where the majority of their net worth is). If Andreessen were to accidentally light $200M of his own cash on fire, he'd come through it, lifestyle unscathed.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Well, I'd have expected that most suburban homeowners are planning to stay put for a while (i.e. they're not renters). So I'd expect them to value the health of the neighbourhood over property values. Where I live, property is expensive, and I live in a neighbourhood that seems to be dominated by investment property; many empty properties or short-let properties. There are no kids here, even though the neighbourhood would be fine for kids. Anyway, that's apparently not the way the cookie crumbles; owning property so you can live in it seems to have become unfashionable. I hope the fashion changes, because I have no plans to sell.