3 ms·

> 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 o

> 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.

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.