This is so true for the housing crisis. Conservative NIMBYs will be like "deregulation good!" and "free market good!", but then they religiously show up to any and all city hall meetings to rant and rave about how we need to use heavy-handed regulations to protect "historic" parking lots and the "neighborhood character".
“I want less regulation on my investments and less black people in my neighborhood!”
Fewer* mein führer
NIMBYs unfortunately don't come just in red flavor...
I used to live in a pretty liberal area and when the topic of a homeless shelter came out, the same people who campaigned for it suddenly were against it because it was down the street from them.
"I said I wanted to help the poor, not see them!"
Same thing happens here in Seattle and the surrounding suburbs pretty regularly.
"House the homeless! Housing should be a right! Take my tax money!"
[new shelter, tiny home village, or other transitional housing project gets planned]
"No, not like that!"
Yep, Portland is a perfect example of liberal NIMBYs.
Same here in Seattle. Most people are willing to put their money where their mouth is and vote for increased taxes to address the housing shortage and need for transitional services for homeless people, but then that NIMBYism wins out when a project is proposed in their area.
Its why i say politically, fixing homelessness is a lose lose situation
~~Who else is losing? Nimbys can fuck right off if the loser in that situation is the NIMBY because a homeless person got a "win."~~
~~I don't give a flying fuck, a rats ass, or whatever other colorful saying there is that someone's neighborhood loses "character" or home value (it's a necessity not a fucking investment, even though we made it one.) If the end result is we fix homelessness I say they can deal with it, humans are great at adapting just ask the homeless.~~
Edit: I'll leave it as it's still an important thought, but I misread "politically." Yeah a politician will want to fix the problem and then the voters will vote them out because of their personal greed/selfishness.
The NIMBYs lose and the politicians lose because they get voted out by said angry NIMBYs.
The people who most need the help win.
This is a really tough nut to crack... Even if you were personally fine with a shelter nearby, it'll affect things like property values since most people wouldn't be fine with it. Couple that with the likely increase in things like theft and vandalism it's really hard to get people on board to live near a shelter when they know there'll be an increased burden placed upon them. I don't think it's fair to demonize people who aren't willing to take that burden on themselves.
In my city the shelters are located mostly away from residential areas which does help somewhat, but if you know anyone who lives within approx 10 blocks of a shelter they will absolutely notice the difference from before the shelter was put in.
You're unfortunately very correct. Housing aimed at the homeless (living on the street type homeless) increases crime and trash in the area. I sympathize with people who buy a house and then have a transitional housing project built near them because they bought their house without expecting that change. However, it has to go somewhere.
It's a problem here in Seattle that a lot of these homeless services get placed in districts which have a lot of minorities or are lower income in general. It's not fair--extremely classist--and these services should be spread out and include the wealthier, whiter neighborhoods as well.
Tuff.
Blaming NYMBYs for protecting the value stored in their homes is not productive. This, like homelessness, is just a necessary outcome of real estate markets.
Homes are not shelter and safety for human beings, they're an investment for the rich; reservoir of wealth for the middle class; and (an often unattainable) dream for the poor. This is why landlords are parasites, NYMBYs are jerks, and people live unhoused. Blaming it on individual choices and ignoring the systemic incentives is the same individualist bullshit that got us here.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Can I hate the people who actively prop it up?
Land has rights!*
*Landowners
After "historic" I expected a lot of things like houses, trees, churches, etc, but parking lots wasn't one of them
Unregulated unions are peak free market but they don't ever like hearing that one do they
Well, they certainly are mad that the free market decided a certain movie was to make over a Barbillion dollars for "going woke".
Truly, truly outrageous. 🥰
I finally watched that movie a couple of weeks ago, I really liked it!
I told you it was a good movie. :)
Yeah, but I was told you could just be a dog on the internet, so I wasn't sure if I could trust you 🤗
I still don't believe this is Margot Robbie. I'm not tryna be a dick, just being super skeptical, because of the Internet.
It's a 47 year old man named Robbie Margot Smith from South Dakota. Got to give him credit for staying in character tho.
That is more believable, but I still don't believe it. Lol
Hence why I interjected the comment about the dog. 😉
*society rejects bigotry and violence *
“CaNceL CuLtURe!!”
Them: Keep the government out of my personal life
Also them: [screams about banning everything they're told they shouldn't like]
Stay out of my personal life! *attacks marriage and LGBT existence and medical privacy *
This country is about liberty! denies bodily autonomy to half the population
Though at the top levels where propaganda strategies get decided, the abortion thing is probably more about keeping the working class fully staffed.
That's exactly what it is
News articles started talking about lowered birth rates and then Republicans immediately started pushing anti abortion propaganda
Capitalism means I get whatever I want whenever I want it and if I don't like it, it doesn't happen. Because I'm rich and any time it works out for me, poor people also get rich.
Thucydides unknowingly described capitalism from a conflict between Athens and Melos around 400 BC
δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν
or as Richard Crawley translated it, "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must."
This seems very general, applicable to capitalism as well as to all other economic and government types.
Or do you say feudalism isn't perfectly described by that statement?
Feudalism is largely proto-capitalism, so, yeah it works there.
Also "let the States decide" if in the US. Just not the States they don't like.
A good heuristic for conservative thought remains "Ingroups to protect, outgroups to bind.". They're assholes.
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the shadows lie.
Conservatives are all about what benefits them and them only. If it also benefits people they don't like, then it's not good enough. If it comes at the cost of others, even better, but it's all about privilege. They don't have fixed ideological positions like 'free market over regulation, always and everywhere'. If the free market gives them what they want, they favour it. If the free market decides in a way that doesn't benefit them, they're against it. If regulation gives them what they want, regulation is good. If regulation works against them, regulation is bad.
That's literally all there is to it.
Ohio right now
The next thing to expect is they would cry that free market is fake all along.
Image Transcription: Twitter
Nathalie Baptiste @nhbaptiste
Conservatives: LET THE FREE MARKET DECIDE
Free market: *decides*
Conservatives: this is outRAGEOUS
Libertarians: Let the free market decide. Free Market decides. Libertarians: Cool!
Just as well the Free Market means many markets/options.
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
