4 ms·

It's funny to see criticism of Matt Stoller's points boil down to whataboutism. It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another. It doesn't invalidat

It's funny to see criticism of Matt Stoller's points boil down to whataboutism. It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another. It doesn't invalidate anything.

doctorpangloss 2y ago
Ha ha, my dude, the two kinds of land use restrictions are the same thing. He might not be a hypocrite per se but it’s meant to illuminate that his position boils down to “I’ve got mine.”
- JadeNB 2y ago
  > Ha ha, my dude, the two kinds of land use restrictions are the same thing. He might not be a hypocrite per se but it’s meant to illuminate that his position boils down to “I’ve got mine.” Your parent didn't say "those two cases are different," but rather "it's OK to be right about one thing and wrong on another." That someone has a blind spot for matters that affect him directly doesn't mean he's wrong about the matter that doesn't affect him directly (though of course it also doesn't mean he's right).
  - doctorpangloss 2y ago
    This isn't complicated. Matt Stoller, a guy I've never heard of and do not know personally, is a NIMBY. Millions of Californians are, no big deal. It's a valid opinion. But does it harm his credibility about political and economic matters? Yes, acutely in this case. There are costs to being a NIMBY, even if it's all about looking out for #1!
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      > This isn't complicated. Matt Stoller, a guy I've never heard of and do not know personally, is a NIMBY. Except, that isn't true. Arguing that the YIMBY explanation of our housing supply problems is incomplete doesn't make you a NIMBY. Your uniformed commentary also adds nothing to the discussion. Next time please take the time of read the opinions of someone before arguing on the internet about what they are.
gruez 2y ago
>It's funny to see criticism of Matt Stoller's points boil down to whataboutism. That's not whataboutism, it's inconsistency, and it's worth pointing out. >It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another. but wouldn't you rather be right on both? "but I'm at least right on one" seems like a pretty low bar to aim for. >It doesn't invalidate anything. Did OP imply otherwise?
- falcolas 2y ago
  Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other government regulation. Beyond enforcement, the government has no real part in the former. Except perhaps not disallowing it. But we have rights to specific parts of usage excluded from land sales all the time - water rights being a particularly gnarly one.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other government regulation. Shouldn't he rail harder against the former than the latter? A contract is agreed to by two willing parties. The same can't be said for government regulation, especially for people who want to move into an area but are blocked by NIMBYs.
    - falcolas 2y ago
      Personally I'd agree. But his having different priorities than us doesn't make him a hypocrite.
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      > A contract is agreed to by two willing parties. That doesn't matter at all, "two willing parties" doesn't make a contract legal. Neither of those willing parties are the ones harmed being harmed by the anti-competitive contracts.
- hmottestad 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
epistasis 2y ago
To be clear, I think he's very right in this article about abuse of monopoly. I just wish he'd cede that for California, and other highly in-demand areas, he's wrong to pooh-pooh the monopoly of land use, and it makes him seem a bit foolish to me. If I'm ever inconsistent, I hope people point it out to me! This isn't "whataboutism" this is me changing the subject to a different area where I wish he'd be correct and use his considerable wonk-weight to correcting. Its not changing the subject to counter his point about grocery stores in Mammoth, California, it's more of a yes, and. I'm also for improving the market forces in construction, and do devote some political effort to correcting exactly that problem.

It's funny to see criticism of Matt Stoller's points boil down to whataboutism. It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another. It doesn't invalidate anything.

doctorpangloss 2y ago

Ha ha, my dude, the two kinds of land use restrictions are the same thing. He might not be a hypocrite per se but it’s meant to illuminate that his position boils down to “I’ve got mine.”

JadeNB 2y ago
> Ha ha, my dude, the two kinds of land use restrictions are the same thing. He might not be a hypocrite per se but it’s meant to illuminate that his position boils down to “I’ve got mine.” Your parent didn't say "those two cases are different," but rather "it's OK to be right about one thing and wrong on another." That someone has a blind spot for matters that affect him directly doesn't mean he's wrong about the matter that doesn't affect him directly (though of course it also doesn't mean he's right).
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  This isn't complicated. Matt Stoller, a guy I've never heard of and do not know personally, is a NIMBY. Millions of Californians are, no big deal. It's a valid opinion. But does it harm his credibility about political and economic matters? Yes, acutely in this case. There are costs to being a NIMBY, even if it's all about looking out for #1!
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    > This isn't complicated. Matt Stoller, a guy I've never heard of and do not know personally, is a NIMBY. Except, that isn't true. Arguing that the YIMBY explanation of our housing supply problems is incomplete doesn't make you a NIMBY. Your uniformed commentary also adds nothing to the discussion. Next time please take the time of read the opinions of someone before arguing on the internet about what they are.

gruez 2y ago

>It's funny to see criticism of Matt Stoller's points boil down to whataboutism. That's not whataboutism, it's inconsistency, and it's worth pointing out. >It's okay to be right one one thing and wrong on another. but wouldn't you rather be right on both? "but I'm at least right on one" seems like a pretty low bar to aim for. >It doesn't invalidate anything. Did OP imply otherwise?

falcolas 2y ago
Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other government regulation. Beyond enforcement, the government has no real part in the former. Except perhaps not disallowing it. But we have rights to specific parts of usage excluded from land sales all the time - water rights being a particularly gnarly one.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other government regulation. Shouldn't he rail harder against the former than the latter? A contract is agreed to by two willing parties. The same can't be said for government regulation, especially for people who want to move into an area but are blocked by NIMBYs.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    Personally I'd agree. But his having different priorities than us doesn't make him a hypocrite.
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    > A contract is agreed to by two willing parties. That doesn't matter at all, "two willing parties" doesn't make a contract legal. Neither of those willing parties are the ones harmed being harmed by the anti-competitive contracts.
hmottestad 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

epistasis 2y ago

To be clear, I think he's very right in this article about abuse of monopoly. I just wish he'd cede that for California, and other highly in-demand areas, he's wrong to pooh-pooh the monopoly of land use, and it makes him seem a bit foolish to me. If I'm ever inconsistent, I hope people point it out to me! This isn't "whataboutism" this is me changing the subject to a different area where I wish he'd be correct and use his considerable wonk-weight to correcting. Its not changing the subject to counter his point about grocery stores in Mammoth, California, it's more of a yes, and. I'm also for improving the market forces in construction, and do devote some political effort to correcting exactly that problem.