5 ms·

Feels like a rhetorical trap. It's easy to brand someone "a nimby" because by nature people will care more about the building of things the closer they are to

Feels like a rhetorical trap. It's easy to brand someone "a nimby" because by nature people will care more about the building of things the closer they are to them. However it's just pointless dunking that doesn't engage the core issues of why people might disagree over what is being built and where. For instance, ones reasons for opposing a landfill being built nearby are morally very different from opposing high density housing.

tptacek 4y ago
I answered an isomorphic argument downthread. Further: nobody is proposing building a landfill.
- dasil003 4y ago
  IMHO you should engage directly with the reason people are opposed rather than just seeking to label them hypocritical based on implicit reasons. In this case you believe high density housing is more important than their property value; either that or you just want them to accept the label that a political movement brands them with (no harm no foul, I like to argue on the internet too). My point with the landfill is reductio ad absurdum. There is definitely something that you would oppose if proposed to be built near your home. I guess you are saying at that point you would be a nimby too? And I'm saying that's not a debate that gets us anywhere in terms of where to build things we need built, it just leads to further polarization.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Here we're talking about an apartment building, so I don't think the slope you're trying to slip the argument down really exists. We're talking about anti-housing advocacy.
    - dasil003 4y ago
      Okay, that's fair
ajmurmann 4y ago
We should strive for policies that we'd want to be implemented everywhere and not defend different policies for ourselves. I'm inclined to see anyone who demands different treatment for themselves than they'd want for the system as a whole either as a moron or evil.
- happytoexplain 4y ago
  This is generally true, but policy is hard to define and individual cases are easy to have an opinion about. Specifically, what you're describing is sometimes literally impossible, because society is zero-sum. When situations between people are at odds due to no direct fault of either party, it's unreasonable to expect people to cede their own interests to those of others. Of course there's a limit - you shouldn't oppose nearby housing if it would help people in need and wouldn't hurt you in any appreciable way, obviously. Point is, it's subjective. Also, I would suggest closely analyzing your thoughts and feelings when you run into a situation where you are broadly considering some category of people "morons or evil". Such categories obviously exist, but when you see them in the real world, the picture is often more complex than you might be willing to admit at first.

tptacek 4y ago

I answered an isomorphic argument downthread. Further: nobody is proposing building a landfill.

dasil003 4y ago
IMHO you should engage directly with the reason people are opposed rather than just seeking to label them hypocritical based on implicit reasons. In this case you believe high density housing is more important than their property value; either that or you just want them to accept the label that a political movement brands them with (no harm no foul, I like to argue on the internet too). My point with the landfill is reductio ad absurdum. There is definitely something that you would oppose if proposed to be built near your home. I guess you are saying at that point you would be a nimby too? And I'm saying that's not a debate that gets us anywhere in terms of where to build things we need built, it just leads to further polarization.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Here we're talking about an apartment building, so I don't think the slope you're trying to slip the argument down really exists. We're talking about anti-housing advocacy.
  - dasil003 4y ago
    Okay, that's fair

ajmurmann 4y ago

We should strive for policies that we'd want to be implemented everywhere and not defend different policies for ourselves. I'm inclined to see anyone who demands different treatment for themselves than they'd want for the system as a whole either as a moron or evil.

happytoexplain 4y ago
This is generally true, but policy is hard to define and individual cases are easy to have an opinion about. Specifically, what you're describing is sometimes literally impossible, because society is zero-sum. When situations between people are at odds due to no direct fault of either party, it's unreasonable to expect people to cede their own interests to those of others. Of course there's a limit - you shouldn't oppose nearby housing if it would help people in need and wouldn't hurt you in any appreciable way, obviously. Point is, it's subjective. Also, I would suggest closely analyzing your thoughts and feelings when you run into a situation where you are broadly considering some category of people "morons or evil". Such categories obviously exist, but when you see them in the real world, the picture is often more complex than you might be willing to admit at first.