6 ms·

The Dangerous Rise of Front Yard Polticics

25 points by Pigalowda 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
thakoppno 4y ago
https://archive.is/ensb5 https://archive.is/ensb5
Overtonwindow 4y ago
This is just more NIMBYism. Front yard signs that everyone is welcome but then flip out when immigrants arrive. People proclaiming they care for the poor, the homeless, yet become enraged if you dare to put a shelter within half a mile of their property. It's the same disingenuousness that American politics is rife with. Americans seem very enthusiastic about telling everyone else what they should do about an issue, but as soon as it effects them in any way, it becomes Not In My Backyard or just "not my problem."
- notacoward 4y ago
  The article does touch on this. It's a more general issue of which NIMBY is only a part. In most usage, NIMBY is about building a tangible thing in a particular place. What the author is talking about applies even when there's no tangible thing and no particular place - e.g. taxes or regulations that affect what we do or how we do them. I think of it as people saying they want some change X while precluding all ways of doing X. Consider the example of helping the poor. NIMBY: ...but I don't want to see or interact with them. Almost NIMBY: ...but not by providing them with housing or transportation other things that cost money. Not NIMBY (but still awful): ...but not by dealing with payday lenders and bank fees and punitive policing. Do you want to use "NIMBY" as convenient shorthand for all of these? That's fine with me, and consistent with your name here, but it is a shift from how the term is currently used. The difference is worth thinking about, instead of "just"-ing it away.
  - readthenotes1 4y ago
    Couldn't all those people with signs welcoming illegal immigrants house them on a couch or spare bedroom or a tent in their back yard? This is not even more literally NIMBY than most (which are "not in my neighborhood or I usually spend my time")
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 4y ago
[flagged]
- nerdchum 4y ago
  Bleeding heart people are always like this. They want to help...but from very very far away.
  - xhkkffbf 4y ago
    Well, Derek Thompson at the Atlantic isn't one of them. He seems to feel that the resettlement payment should be large enough so the refugees can live in the fancy neighborhood. It's the unwashed Americans who can't move there.
    - DyeJoeBoo 4y ago
      This is a huge distortion of Derek Thompson's views. He has written extensively about what he calls an agenda of abundance. His solution to housing unaffordability is not to increase payments to either migrants or citizens. His solution is to tear down the restrictions that prevent substantive housing from being built. In this way, housing prices will be lowered for everyone.
- wootland 4y ago
  > And most of these families not only don’t speak English, they often don’t even speak Spanish. They often speak a variety of indigenous languages common across rural Latin America. That actually sounds super fascinating and like a unique opportunity to learn about pre-Coloumbian history. Do you know any of the language names? Did these children come from extremely remote villages that never adopted Spanish? > If that suddenly happened at Spring Hill I guarantee you Trump would win Virginia in a landslide. Democrats like my parents—who are upset that the mixed income neighborhood where we live has some poor kids—would be chanting “build that wall.” It's honestly really sad that anyone would see these children as a threat and not as an opportunity to learn more about the world and our history.
  - 4y ago
im3w1l 4y ago
This is half devils-advocate, half serious, and half I'm curious to see where the discussion will go. What if instead of using credit scores to decide who may live where, what if we instead used social credit scores to decide? Perhaps it is lazy of me not to elaborate on what exactly would go into that score but part of it is me not knowing either.
- iamdamian 4y ago
  Check out the Black Mirror episode called ‘Nosedive’. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror)
- bezier-curve 4y ago
  A social credit system, such as the one used by the CCP? Are you sure you don't want to elaborate?
  - im3w1l 4y ago
    I can maybe try. What are the qualities we would want and not want in a neighbor? A top priority I would think is we don't want someone who makes us feel unsafe, so there should be a penalty for such things as getting into fights and crime, perhaps petty crime especially. On the other hand we do want someone that is friendly and helps take care of the commons, someone that helps clean up the street from litter and someone that arranges block parties to help people get to know each other. There are also factors where people have strong preferences and compatibility is important, stuff like loud late night parties (it's reasonable to have neighborhoods both with and without) and communities where you have to have a perfectly manicured lawn (compare HOA).
    - Schiendelman 4y ago
      The problem is that the people with power set up what data gets used in a credit score - and the people with power are the white homeowners who want HOAs to control their neighbors. When you ask "what are the qualities we would want..." you miss that the definition of "we" is why discrimination exists.
BigCryo 4y ago
Scary populism is really really scary
- amadeuspagel 4y ago
  The article is not about populism at all.
slily 4y ago
This article reads like meta-virtue signaling. The author criticizes his neighbours' yard signs, but he too lives in what is presumably a rich, homogeneous and exclusive neighbourhood - I've only ever seen those types of signs in those areas, rarely in a working-class neighbourhood. The author projects an image of a virtuous champion by calling out others for not doing enough, but as a beneficiary of exclusionary policies, how would he feel if his quality of life declined as a result of the values he champions in this article? I agree with the general sentiment about "front-yard politics" (aka virtue signaling), but instead of facing the reasons why people tend to shy away from substantial action, the author advocates for doubling down on counter-productive (and discriminatory) programs that disfavour working-class people. I question the author's honesty. All those words don't strike me as much more convincing than a sign in one's front yard.

25 points by Pigalowda 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

thakoppno 4y ago

https://archive.is/ensb5 https://archive.is/ensb5

Overtonwindow 4y ago

This is just more NIMBYism. Front yard signs that everyone is welcome but then flip out when immigrants arrive. People proclaiming they care for the poor, the homeless, yet become enraged if you dare to put a shelter within half a mile of their property. It's the same disingenuousness that American politics is rife with. Americans seem very enthusiastic about telling everyone else what they should do about an issue, but as soon as it effects them in any way, it becomes Not In My Backyard or just "not my problem."

notacoward 4y ago
The article does touch on this. It's a more general issue of which NIMBY is only a part. In most usage, NIMBY is about building a tangible thing in a particular place. What the author is talking about applies even when there's no tangible thing and no particular place - e.g. taxes or regulations that affect what we do or how we do them. I think of it as people saying they want some change X while precluding all ways of doing X. Consider the example of helping the poor. NIMBY: ...but I don't want to see or interact with them. Almost NIMBY: ...but not by providing them with housing or transportation other things that cost money. Not NIMBY (but still awful): ...but not by dealing with payday lenders and bank fees and punitive policing. Do you want to use "NIMBY" as convenient shorthand for all of these? That's fine with me, and consistent with your name here, but it is a shift from how the term is currently used. The difference is worth thinking about, instead of "just"-ing it away.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  Couldn't all those people with signs welcoming illegal immigrants house them on a couch or spare bedroom or a tent in their back yard? This is not even more literally NIMBY than most (which are "not in my neighborhood or I usually spend my time")

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 4y ago

[flagged]

nerdchum 4y ago
Bleeding heart people are always like this. They want to help...but from very very far away.
- xhkkffbf 4y ago
  Well, Derek Thompson at the Atlantic isn't one of them. He seems to feel that the resettlement payment should be large enough so the refugees can live in the fancy neighborhood. It's the unwashed Americans who can't move there.
  - DyeJoeBoo 4y ago
    This is a huge distortion of Derek Thompson's views. He has written extensively about what he calls an agenda of abundance. His solution to housing unaffordability is not to increase payments to either migrants or citizens. His solution is to tear down the restrictions that prevent substantive housing from being built. In this way, housing prices will be lowered for everyone.
wootland 4y ago
> And most of these families not only don’t speak English, they often don’t even speak Spanish. They often speak a variety of indigenous languages common across rural Latin America. That actually sounds super fascinating and like a unique opportunity to learn about pre-Coloumbian history. Do you know any of the language names? Did these children come from extremely remote villages that never adopted Spanish? > If that suddenly happened at Spring Hill I guarantee you Trump would win Virginia in a landslide. Democrats like my parents—who are upset that the mixed income neighborhood where we live has some poor kids—would be chanting “build that wall.” It's honestly really sad that anyone would see these children as a threat and not as an opportunity to learn more about the world and our history.
- 4y ago

im3w1l 4y ago

This is half devils-advocate, half serious, and half I'm curious to see where the discussion will go. What if instead of using credit scores to decide who may live where, what if we instead used social credit scores to decide? Perhaps it is lazy of me not to elaborate on what exactly would go into that score but part of it is me not knowing either.

iamdamian 4y ago
Check out the Black Mirror episode called ‘Nosedive’. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror)
bezier-curve 4y ago
A social credit system, such as the one used by the CCP? Are you sure you don't want to elaborate?
- im3w1l 4y ago
  I can maybe try. What are the qualities we would want and not want in a neighbor? A top priority I would think is we don't want someone who makes us feel unsafe, so there should be a penalty for such things as getting into fights and crime, perhaps petty crime especially. On the other hand we do want someone that is friendly and helps take care of the commons, someone that helps clean up the street from litter and someone that arranges block parties to help people get to know each other. There are also factors where people have strong preferences and compatibility is important, stuff like loud late night parties (it's reasonable to have neighborhoods both with and without) and communities where you have to have a perfectly manicured lawn (compare HOA).
  - Schiendelman 4y ago
    The problem is that the people with power set up what data gets used in a credit score - and the people with power are the white homeowners who want HOAs to control their neighbors. When you ask "what are the qualities we would want..." you miss that the definition of "we" is why discrimination exists.

BigCryo 4y ago

Scary populism is really really scary

amadeuspagel 4y ago
The article is not about populism at all.

slily 4y ago

This article reads like meta-virtue signaling. The author criticizes his neighbours' yard signs, but he too lives in what is presumably a rich, homogeneous and exclusive neighbourhood - I've only ever seen those types of signs in those areas, rarely in a working-class neighbourhood. The author projects an image of a virtuous champion by calling out others for not doing enough, but as a beneficiary of exclusionary policies, how would he feel if his quality of life declined as a result of the values he champions in this article? I agree with the general sentiment about "front-yard politics" (aka virtue signaling), but instead of facing the reasons why people tend to shy away from substantial action, the author advocates for doubling down on counter-productive (and discriminatory) programs that disfavour working-class people. I question the author's honesty. All those words don't strike me as much more convincing than a sign in one's front yard.