Banea-Vaedr t1_j41z0ff wrote
Reply to comment by Codspear in In MA, single women over 65 are more economically vulnerable than in any other state. Housing cost is a major factor. by Creative_Law_1484
>Why should a neighbor have a voice over property they don’t own? If you don’t want more housing within a mile of you, buy up all the property within a mile of you, but don’t tell other people what they can or can’t build on THEIR property.
It keeps people from shooting up/bombing/bulldozering a building or city.
>Also, I’d love to see a NIMBY blow themselves up trying to rig an improvised explosive together. That’d be hilarious.
Codspear t1_j424ea2 wrote
> It keeps people from shooting up/bombing/bulldozering a building or city.
Better to have freedom than peace. I’d rather have property rights, affordable market-rate housing, and the occasional NIMBY terrorist than the status quo.
>brings up the killdozer
You’re just making a case for the 2nd amendment covering RPG launchers.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j424kco wrote
In fact, you will have the opposite because it's not occasional, it happens all the time.
Codspear t1_j4250yx wrote
So be it. I reserve the right to shoot terrorists that seek to do serious harm to my family and/or property.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j4259ii wrote
So did black Southerners. How'd that go?
If enough people hate you, you will lose. It's better to negotiate an acceptable settlement if you don't have the power to use force
Codspear t1_j426kb9 wrote
> So did black Southerners. How’d that go?
They’re free now, so apparently it worked. But at least you understand what side of history you NIMBYs stand on.
> If enough people hate you, you will lose. It’s better to negotiate an acceptable settlement if you don’t have the power to use force.
Lol. You greatly overestimate the number of people willing to commit violence against someone else over an apartment building. Even if they were willing, it’s better to die free than live on your knees.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j427824 wrote
>They’re free now, so apparently it worked.
They didn't do that. Sympathetic White Northerners and the 101st Airbourne did. If you don't have the force to back up your proclamations, they don't matter.
>But at least you understand what side of history you NIMBYs stand on.
History is not a narrative or a grand march to a leftist utopia. It doesnt end. There are no "sides of history". If Hitler stayed out of France and we'd be singing the praises of the Nazis for standing up to the genocidal Soviets.
Codspear t1_j429772 wrote
> They didn’t do that. Sympathetic White Northerners and the 101st Airbourne did. If you don’t have the force to back up your proclamations, they don’t matter.
I’m guessing we’re going to ignore hundreds of major riots and mass-marches… But yes, Northern Whites and their philosophy did push it through Congress.
> History is not a narrative or a grand march to a leftist utopia.
In case you didn’t notice, I’m critiquing you from the right.
> It doesnt end. There are no “sides of history”. If Hitler stayed out of France and we’d be singing the praises of the Nazis for standing up to the genocidal Soviets.
There is a right side of history: The side that won.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j42afn7 wrote
>I’m guessing we’re going to ignore hundreds of major riots and mass-marches… But yes, Northern Whites and their philosophy did push it through Congress.
Marches mean nothing when you don't have the guns to make it work. Selma was a tactical disaster, for example. What it did was draw support from people with guns who would otherwise not have been sympathetic.
>There is a right side of history: The side that won.
The side that won so far. There is no permanent victory. It's entirely possible that in 200 years, the fall of the nazi regime is discussed as the greatest tragedy ever to befall mankind.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments