4 ms·

I’m reminded of the phrase “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. You’re framing this as just “shifting the problem” without acknowledging that probl

I’m reminded of the phrase “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. You’re framing this as just “shifting the problem” without acknowledging that problems have degrees of severity. There’s nothing inherently wrong with saying, “let’s make the problem less severe right now, but continue looking for a better solution”. It seems to me the real front line of the debate is whether the problem is in fact made less severe by what’s being suggested. But apparently engaging in that debate isn’t quite as gratifying as attacking the person’s entire framework for finding solutions.

zoogeny 3y ago
> I’m reminded of the phrase “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” Well, if our arguments are going to devolve into trite cliche then I might trot out: primum non nocere -- First, do no harm. It is not clear to me that this approach is free from potential harm. On the contrary, limiting people's access to participation seems like the kind of tool a wealthy elite would gladly wield against the poor and disenfranchised. I strongly doubt that it would primarily be used to protect the weak.
- elcritch 3y ago
  The current NIMBY-ism status quo is actively harming the weak and poorer folks. Continuing it will continue harming those folks. In many areas it seems to be wealthy people from other locales or powerful city representatives with no actual skin in the game who block many beneficial building projects. I believe the authors intent is to find ways to let people who are influenced the most have the most say. Even then he suggests rolling it out in small experiments which would allow checking the assumptions. If it's harmful, then stop.
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  > Well, if our arguments are going to devolve into trite cliche then I might trot out: primum non nocere -- First, do no harm. Oh get over yourself. I used a “trite cliche” as a way to give a general sense of the point I was trying to make before going into it more detail. Had I responded with only that, sure, that would be devolving the argument, but I didn’t. > It is not clear to me that this approach is free from potential harm. On the contrary, limiting people's access to participation seems like the kind of tool a wealthy elite would gladly wield against the poor and disenfranchised. I strongly doubt that it would primarily be used to protect the weak. That’s a strong argument and one that I’m inclined to agree with.

zoogeny 3y ago

> I’m reminded of the phrase “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” Well, if our arguments are going to devolve into trite cliche then I might trot out: primum non nocere -- First, do no harm. It is not clear to me that this approach is free from potential harm. On the contrary, limiting people's access to participation seems like the kind of tool a wealthy elite would gladly wield against the poor and disenfranchised. I strongly doubt that it would primarily be used to protect the weak.

elcritch 3y ago
The current NIMBY-ism status quo is actively harming the weak and poorer folks. Continuing it will continue harming those folks. In many areas it seems to be wealthy people from other locales or powerful city representatives with no actual skin in the game who block many beneficial building projects. I believe the authors intent is to find ways to let people who are influenced the most have the most say. Even then he suggests rolling it out in small experiments which would allow checking the assumptions. If it's harmful, then stop.
bandyaboot 3y ago
> Well, if our arguments are going to devolve into trite cliche then I might trot out: primum non nocere -- First, do no harm. Oh get over yourself. I used a “trite cliche” as a way to give a general sense of the point I was trying to make before going into it more detail. Had I responded with only that, sure, that would be devolving the argument, but I didn’t. > It is not clear to me that this approach is free from potential harm. On the contrary, limiting people's access to participation seems like the kind of tool a wealthy elite would gladly wield against the poor and disenfranchised. I strongly doubt that it would primarily be used to protect the weak. That’s a strong argument and one that I’m inclined to agree with.