Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Do you think that means I make my own data centers? Like, to get my next product off the ground, I have to go site a data center somewhere near you? How do you think the world works?

You are relaying NIMBY talking points (down to "you have a vested interest in shutting down public comment", which is a first-ballot hall-of-famer), because you're so negatively polarized against data centers. It's a weird thing to be proud of.

View on HN

NIMBYism and NIMBY talking points aren't inherently wrong. There are just very high-profile instances of NIMBYism in the cultural headspace that are wrong, which results in things like "NIMBY talking point" being used as a standalone criticism despite being insufficient as one.

NIMBYism is inherently wrong.

Since I don't think you're irrational, I assume it's probably just a semantic disagreement then. E.g. you're probably using the word to mean "unreasonable opposition to development from locals" while I use it to mean "any opposition to development from locals", rather than restricting the definition to petty things like "I don't want anything built near me that will cause my property value to go down no matter who it benefits".

But now that I think about it, I think either definition supports my criticism of your use of the term as a generic net for "you're wrong", like all the traditional one-worders in social/political arguments.

Sorry, I've lost track of what you're trying to argue. But I'll say again: it's easy to find examples of people negatively polarized into support of NIMBYism, which is exactly what is happening when people valorize public comment in opposition of development. There's an entire Current Affairs cover story where Nathan Robinson gets negatively polarized into opposing housing. It's a thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com