My point is that *self-identified* progressives are clearly the ones that shift the balance of power toward NIMBYism in the places where it matters. Consider:
1. 90%+ of San Franciscans are Democrats (who almost universally think of themselves as progressive)
2. The majority of SF voters support NIMBY policies.
3.…
My point is that *self-identified* progressives are clearly the ones that shift the balance of power toward NIMBYism in the places where it matters. Consider:
1. 90%+ of San Franciscans are Democrats (who almost universally think of themselves as progressive)
2. The majority of SF voters support NIMBY policies.
3. In fact, the NIMBY wing of SF politics is the "progressive" wing (as opposed to the "moderate" wing), and everyone accepts that.
Ergo, self-identified progressives seem to be driving NIMBY policy in the richest cities in America, which is really where NIMBYism matters (the cities with less economic opportunity have less demand anyway).
Clearly there is also a large minority of progressives who are opposed to scarcity! But the point of the essay is a lot of our problems stem from people who fervently believe they are doing the right thing, even when they are just self-interested and have bought into a bunch of conspiracy theories to resolve the cognitive dissonance.
Ok I'll buy that. But do you make that point in the essay? Seems important to clearly state that the ideals of progressivism are clearly anti-scarcity, even though some people acting under that label are not. Performative neo-liberalism is indeed a problem within the Corporate owned Democratic party, but you do a disservice to the real progressives, and everyone really, by convoluting who stands for what.
The original point of the essay was to look at how we form our convictions and get sucked in by conspiracy theories.
The *ideals* of progressivism are clearly anti-scarcity, but the many of the practitioners don't embrace it. The NIMBYs aren't some fringe wing of the Democratic party, they are firmly in power in most blue cities and states.
I am arguing this is not a case of performative anything - I live in California and people don't complain that much about steeply progressive income taxes and so on. We probably disagree here but I don't think people are reflexively hypocritical.
I am saying NIMBYs truly believe in progressivism, and live it, but we come by our convictions via emotion. Self-interest bias creeps in, and also people assume that if they oppose wealthy developers they must be doing the right thing. And then once you become a NIMBY activist and go to meetings, that really pounds it in - at that point, your brain won't even countenance the fact that you might be the problem - after all, you're a good person, developers are bad people, and your community seems to be in good shape.
The conspiracy theory part comes when people present evidence that scarcity is bad - your brain wants to find evidence that your narrative and beliefs are correct so you end up embracing implausible conspiracy theories that you would have rejected in a normal situation. It's how people resolve cognitive dissonance.
NIMBYs don't want to hurt the less fortunate any more than 19th century doctors wanted to kill their patients. But this is how we naturally think, and so it's up to us to be aware of that and always be asking ourselves if we are just responding to confirmation bias or if what we think makes sense.
Clearly the other side is much more prone to this kind of thinking, but I thought that was implicit in the title (Scarcity Truthers).
Well, no true Scotsman...
My point is that *self-identified* progressives are clearly the ones that shift the balance of power toward NIMBYism in the places where it matters. Consider:
1. 90%+ of San Franciscans are Democrats (who almost universally think of themselves as progressive)
2. The majority of SF voters support NIMBY policies.
3. In fact, the NIMBY wing of SF politics is the "progressive" wing (as opposed to the "moderate" wing), and everyone accepts that.
Ergo, self-identified progressives seem to be driving NIMBY policy in the richest cities in America, which is really where NIMBYism matters (the cities with less economic opportunity have less demand anyway).
Clearly there is also a large minority of progressives who are opposed to scarcity! But the point of the essay is a lot of our problems stem from people who fervently believe they are doing the right thing, even when they are just self-interested and have bought into a bunch of conspiracy theories to resolve the cognitive dissonance.
Ok I'll buy that. But do you make that point in the essay? Seems important to clearly state that the ideals of progressivism are clearly anti-scarcity, even though some people acting under that label are not. Performative neo-liberalism is indeed a problem within the Corporate owned Democratic party, but you do a disservice to the real progressives, and everyone really, by convoluting who stands for what.
The original point of the essay was to look at how we form our convictions and get sucked in by conspiracy theories.
The *ideals* of progressivism are clearly anti-scarcity, but the many of the practitioners don't embrace it. The NIMBYs aren't some fringe wing of the Democratic party, they are firmly in power in most blue cities and states.
I am arguing this is not a case of performative anything - I live in California and people don't complain that much about steeply progressive income taxes and so on. We probably disagree here but I don't think people are reflexively hypocritical.
I am saying NIMBYs truly believe in progressivism, and live it, but we come by our convictions via emotion. Self-interest bias creeps in, and also people assume that if they oppose wealthy developers they must be doing the right thing. And then once you become a NIMBY activist and go to meetings, that really pounds it in - at that point, your brain won't even countenance the fact that you might be the problem - after all, you're a good person, developers are bad people, and your community seems to be in good shape.
The conspiracy theory part comes when people present evidence that scarcity is bad - your brain wants to find evidence that your narrative and beliefs are correct so you end up embracing implausible conspiracy theories that you would have rejected in a normal situation. It's how people resolve cognitive dissonance.
NIMBYs don't want to hurt the less fortunate any more than 19th century doctors wanted to kill their patients. But this is how we naturally think, and so it's up to us to be aware of that and always be asking ourselves if we are just responding to confirmation bias or if what we think makes sense.
Clearly the other side is much more prone to this kind of thinking, but I thought that was implicit in the title (Scarcity Truthers).