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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
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.
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).
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.
edit: whelp egg on my face on this one. Wasn’t even directed at me.
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.
Seemed directed at me, my bad.
Those certain contradict your attempt to place a weird limit on for ‘NIMBY’ can be used.