• conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    None of those contradict my definition.

    Not wanting a company dumping fucking trash in the streets is not and does not even vaguely resemble NIMBYism.

    • sim_@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      You’re omitting the part where OP is fine with the “trash dumping” in the streets of other locales. That’s what makes it NIMBY (as OP admits).

      • acastcandream@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        You’re omitting the part where OP is fine with the “trash dumping” in the streets of other locales.

        You’re omitting the part where you are a liar because I said nothing of the sort. But please continue to edit out half my comment to make your point.

        I am totally fine with other cities keeping them out

        [I put] them where they belong instead of leaving them scattered everywhere like an asshole

        Jesus it’s like being back on reddit. Selective reading, complete removal of nuance, the works.

        • sim_@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yikes dude, you’re blaming me for the reddit-esque toxicity.

          I was using the other guy’s wording (“trash dumping”) specifically in quotes because I didn’t agree with that sentiment re: scooters. I’m not making any point about you, I’m talking about the use of the term NIMBYism. Dang.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        He said he’s all for them banning it as any reasonable jurisdiction must do. He’ll just use them if they decide to ruin their streets.