6 ms·

I personally felt that the use of the phrasing «it’s funny» implied that the comment was some kind of criticism. In both comments. I understand whataboutism as

I personally felt that the use of the phrasing «it’s funny» implied that the comment was some kind of criticism. In both comments. I understand whataboutism as bringing up something that is somewhat related in order to shift the focus away from the original topic.

gruez 2y ago
>I understand whataboutism as bringing up something that is somewhat related in order to shift the focus away from the original topic. ...or it's to draw attention that the author might be selectively applying arguments whenever it suits him, and readers shouldn't take him at face value. Between the two articles, it looks like Stroller is against big corporations first and foremost, and musters whatever argument is handy to back that thesis. In the case of house builders, he's explicitly says land use regulations aren't a significant factor ("just pointing at over-regulation in and of itself isn’t a satisfying explanation"), but in the case of supermarkets he turns around and says it is. He doesn't try very hard to explain why it's justified in one case and not the other. The first article is basically "I don't find it convincing [no refutation given], here's my alternate hypothesis". I feel like all of this is worth pointing out, even if it isn't exactly a straight up debunking of the two articles.
- shkkmo 2y ago
  > In the case of house builders, he's explicitly says land use regulations aren't a significant factor ("just pointing at over-regulation in and of itself isn’t a satisfying explanation"), Umm... what? Those are two quite different statements. You can't conflate them that way and be arguing in good faith. You have either misunderstood his stance or are deliberately misrepresenting it.
  - gruez 2y ago
    Here's his tweet promoting that article: >I took on the YIMBY’s here and pointed out that the problem of housing prices and construction is about consolidation of homebuilders, not an upsurge in annoying people who want to maintain neighborhood character. I'm sure you can come up with a contrived worldview that proclaims those two statements, but doesn't believe "land use regulations aren't a significant factor", but it's pretty clear that's his view, even if he doesn't say those literal words.
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      I absolutely can and I don't think it is at all contrived to think that the recent consolidation in the industry is linked to a recent decrease in the building rate. Especially when NIMBY attitudes haven't really spiked and arguably are declining. This doesn't mean that land use regulations (and permiting processes and the other NIMBY tools) don't have an impact, but it does mean that we cant look at that impact to expain the increase. Believing there is only one cause is simplistic and naive and believing in multiple causes is not "contrived". As I said elsewhere, I think NIMBY land use restrictions are an obvious tool to use by any would be oligopolist or monopolist who wanted to restrict the growth of our housing supply. The actual article linked in the tweet does a pretty good job of layong out an argument for the importance of the consolidation among homebuilders (and notably spends no time arguing that land use regulations have no impact.) Instead of engaging with any of those argument you've opted for a shallow dismissal based on trying to tie them to a position that you are only assuming they hold. That is not how you have a good faith discussion.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >I absolutely can and I don't think it is at all contrived to think that the recent consolidation in the industry is linked to a recent decrease in the building rate. >This doesn't mean that land use regulations (and permiting processes and the other NIMBY tools) don't have an impact, but it does mean that we cant look at that impact to expain the increase. Stroller isn't just adding his theory (corporate consolidation) into the list of factors, he's explicitly denies that NIMBYs are a factor. >the problem of housing prices and construction is about consolidation of homebuilders, not an upsurge in annoying people who want to maintain neighborhood character.
        shkkmo 2y ago
        Since you haven't bothered to read or address any of the actual arguments he makes, it isn't worth having a further conversation with you.

gruez 2y ago

>I understand whataboutism as bringing up something that is somewhat related in order to shift the focus away from the original topic. ...or it's to draw attention that the author might be selectively applying arguments whenever it suits him, and readers shouldn't take him at face value. Between the two articles, it looks like Stroller is against big corporations first and foremost, and musters whatever argument is handy to back that thesis. In the case of house builders, he's explicitly says land use regulations aren't a significant factor ("just pointing at over-regulation in and of itself isn’t a satisfying explanation"), but in the case of supermarkets he turns around and says it is. He doesn't try very hard to explain why it's justified in one case and not the other. The first article is basically "I don't find it convincing [no refutation given], here's my alternate hypothesis". I feel like all of this is worth pointing out, even if it isn't exactly a straight up debunking of the two articles.

shkkmo 2y ago
> In the case of house builders, he's explicitly says land use regulations aren't a significant factor ("just pointing at over-regulation in and of itself isn’t a satisfying explanation"), Umm... what? Those are two quite different statements. You can't conflate them that way and be arguing in good faith. You have either misunderstood his stance or are deliberately misrepresenting it.
- gruez 2y ago
  Here's his tweet promoting that article: >I took on the YIMBY’s here and pointed out that the problem of housing prices and construction is about consolidation of homebuilders, not an upsurge in annoying people who want to maintain neighborhood character. I'm sure you can come up with a contrived worldview that proclaims those two statements, but doesn't believe "land use regulations aren't a significant factor", but it's pretty clear that's his view, even if he doesn't say those literal words.
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    I absolutely can and I don't think it is at all contrived to think that the recent consolidation in the industry is linked to a recent decrease in the building rate. Especially when NIMBY attitudes haven't really spiked and arguably are declining. This doesn't mean that land use regulations (and permiting processes and the other NIMBY tools) don't have an impact, but it does mean that we cant look at that impact to expain the increase. Believing there is only one cause is simplistic and naive and believing in multiple causes is not "contrived". As I said elsewhere, I think NIMBY land use restrictions are an obvious tool to use by any would be oligopolist or monopolist who wanted to restrict the growth of our housing supply. The actual article linked in the tweet does a pretty good job of layong out an argument for the importance of the consolidation among homebuilders (and notably spends no time arguing that land use regulations have no impact.) Instead of engaging with any of those argument you've opted for a shallow dismissal based on trying to tie them to a position that you are only assuming they hold. That is not how you have a good faith discussion.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >I absolutely can and I don't think it is at all contrived to think that the recent consolidation in the industry is linked to a recent decrease in the building rate. >This doesn't mean that land use regulations (and permiting processes and the other NIMBY tools) don't have an impact, but it does mean that we cant look at that impact to expain the increase. Stroller isn't just adding his theory (corporate consolidation) into the list of factors, he's explicitly denies that NIMBYs are a factor. >the problem of housing prices and construction is about consolidation of homebuilders, not an upsurge in annoying people who want to maintain neighborhood character.
      - shkkmo 2y ago
        Since you haven't bothered to read or address any of the actual arguments he makes, it isn't worth having a further conversation with you.