• yads@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    The scooters are really popular in our city. Currently we have 2 companies operating: Bird and Neuron. The positives have definitely outweighed the negatives. Hope they can keep going.

    • acastcandream@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m of the total opposite mindset. I love having them where I travel, and I will fight to my dying breath to keep them out of my city lol.

      Before I am called a hypocrite I am totally fine with other cities keeping them out. But if they’re there, I’m using them (and putting them where they belong instead of leaving them scattered everywhere like an asshole)

        • FIash Mob #5678@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          As much as the scooters used to annoy me, the Atlanta ban demonstrated that their presence has a significant positive effect on both pollution and traffic, so now I’m fine with them.

        • acastcandream@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Hence why I clarified that I have no issue with them being removed. They’re terrible when you’re not the one using them.

          It’s my same outlook with cruises. I don’t do them, but if my family wanted to take one I would probably join. I am also super cool with them being banned from the world. Feels pretty consistent to me lol

          • Gamma@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree that you’re consistent, that’s why I said the strong initial statement sounded hypocritical

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not what the term means. NIMBY refers to people trying to prevent other people from using their own property in ways they don’t like, not people who don’t want shitty companies actively throwing trash in the commons.

          • Gamma@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re wrong:

            a person who does not want something unpleasant to be built or done near where they live

            Another!

            a colloquialism signifying one’s opposition to the locating of something considered undesirable in one’s neighborhood.

            Maybe one more?

            opposition to the locating of something considered undesirable (such as a prison or incinerator) in one’s neighborhood

            • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year 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
                11
                ·
                1 year 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).

                  • sim_@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year 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
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year 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.

        • acastcandream@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m fine with them in no backyards. They are corporate waste the way people treat them 90% of the time. If people were better about them (and wore helmets!!!) and the companies actually lifted a finger to keep them out of waterways and blocking sidewalks then I’d be down to have them here.

          I get you were trying to cleverly call me a NIMBY but please actually read what I am writing. Including the original comment. I was very clear.