Anonymous
12/21/2021 09:58
Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Generally speaking, I have little issues with most "urbanist" concepts or policy suggestions, but I have noticed that over the past couple of years that many self proclaimed urbanists have swarmed upon every single bit of social media, both nationally and locally, in the most obsessive, vile troll behavior that I have not seen since the 2016 election. It's like 4 chan gamers got bored and transformed into urbanists.
What amazes me is that most of them are grown ups with master degrees and professional jobs. Some are even professors and government employees. Which also makes me wonder how they do their jobs since they seemingly are the internet 24/7.
It is awful how they will descend upon certain posts, even by the most random person, then berate them for having an opinion that differs from their own. While all the while, creating a cringing circle jerk of how wonderful they are and how horrible that everyone else is.
The internet being the internet is one thing, but many of these people have managed to weed their way into political circles. I have no idea how deep their influence is with our local politicians, but we should all be concerned that people as ravenous as this have any influence on public policy. It's as if greater greater washington has become Filippo Tommaso Marinetti's Futurist Manifesto and anyone who gets in their way are to be eliminated.
Do these people even look at the way they behave for one second? Especially since they deem themselves to paragons of virtue?
I ostracize bigots. Sorry.
OP, this isn’t the right spot for that. I get it totally, but most folks who post here are the vocal political trolls that you are referring to. No one can accept a differing opinion, and they prefer to rant in their echo chamber. Usually, if they sense early you are not completely like-minded, they will break out the playbook:
1. Call you a name or quickly slap on a label that summarizes your whole existence.
2. Insult your intelligence.
3. Accuse you of being (insert liberal opposition term here)
4. Repeat.
It’s boring and predictable, so usually the oppositions just goes always or remains silent, and just let’s them live in their one-sided bubble, riding off into the sunset on their high-horse.
Anonymous
12/20/2021 20:40
Subject: Re:The Urbanist Cult
From time to time when I see this thread I think of this chart. A fleeting ideology that took hold at the same formative time that Millennials started college.
Anonymous
Anonymous
12/15/2021 14:46
Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Hooray!
Anonymous
12/15/2021 14:45
Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Agree! Good grief it was dangerous to be a pedestrian with the reversible lanes.
Anonymous
10/16/2021 22:40
Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I live in the downtown section of a city. Am I an urbanist? Ive always preferred “liberal.”
You’re not urbanist unless you support trickledown economics and ridicule anyone who suggests that approach doesn’t work.
It it surprising that the DC Smart Growth lobby is steered by hired GOP operatives who try to sell their developer clients’ aggressive laissez faire agenda in woke, progressive-sounding terms? Trickle down? More like tricky down!
Anonymous
10/15/2021 21:43
Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I live in the downtown section of a city. Am I an urbanist? Ive always preferred “liberal.”
You’re not urbanist unless you support trickledown economics and ridicule anyone who suggests that approach doesn’t work.
As the GGW woman and the commenters make perfectly clear, they don't actually believe in trickle-down economics. They believe in trickle-down gentrification, and are proud of it.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 20:25
Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:I live in the downtown section of a city. Am I an urbanist? Ive always preferred “liberal.”
You’re not urbanist unless you support trickledown economics and ridicule anyone who suggests that approach doesn’t work.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 19:43
Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was waiting for a piece like this, given the changing objectives of the more progressive urbanists. And here it is. Thanks GGWash for being so, so predictable these days.
"But, upzoning isn’t right for Langley Park"
https://ggwash.org/view/82739/why-upzoning-in-gentrifying-neighborhoods-like-langley-park-isnt-always-a-good-idea
The comments on that post, from the same 8 people who comment on every post there, are truly appalling and show GGWash's true colors. They're all basically :we need to upzpne these poor.people thr hell out of Langley Park." Just gross.
But the piece itself argues exactly the opposite: that upzoning would be a mistake because it risks displacing poor people. So the problem you have is with GG Wash commenters, not with the actual site, maybe.
GG Wash leader herself called the article "lazy." Clearly she agrees with the commenters.
https://twitter.com/alexbaca/status/1449025944115613696
Why GG Wash is publishing things its leadership considers "lazy" is beyond comprehension.
Get a grip. It's an Op-Ed. It's common practice to publish pieces the editorial board disagrees with.
Were you aware that the Washington Post prints Henry Olsen columns? Do you have any outrage to spare for that, or have you used it all up tilting against the GGW windmills?
Is it common practice for WaPo editors to publicly sh-- all over stuff they publish? No.
Holy cow. If you read through the thread sh admits what everyone has known for a long time. GGW is “unethical”.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 18:25
Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was waiting for a piece like this, given the changing objectives of the more progressive urbanists. And here it is. Thanks GGWash for being so, so predictable these days.
"But, upzoning isn’t right for Langley Park"
https://ggwash.org/view/82739/why-upzoning-in-gentrifying-neighborhoods-like-langley-park-isnt-always-a-good-idea
The comments on that post, from the same 8 people who comment on every post there, are truly appalling and show GGWash's true colors. They're all basically :we need to upzpne these poor.people thr hell out of Langley Park." Just gross.
But the piece itself argues exactly the opposite: that upzoning would be a mistake because it risks displacing poor people. So the problem you have is with GG Wash commenters, not with the actual site, maybe.
GG Wash leader herself called the article "lazy." Clearly she agrees with the commenters.
https://twitter.com/alexbaca/status/1449025944115613696
Why GG Wash is publishing things its leadership considers "lazy" is beyond comprehension.
Get a grip. It's an Op-Ed. It's common practice to publish pieces the editorial board disagrees with.
Were you aware that the Washington Post prints Henry Olsen columns? Do you have any outrage to spare for that, or have you used it all up tilting against the GGW windmills?
Is it common practice for WaPo editors to publicly sh-- all over stuff they publish? No.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 17:50
Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:I live in the downtown section of a city. Am I an urbanist? Ive always preferred “liberal.”
No, I lived in several urban / downtown areas and that didn't make me an urbanist, and I would never identify as such. You can continue to be a liberal.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 16:37
Subject: The Urbanist Cult
I live in the downtown section of a city. Am I an urbanist? Ive always preferred “liberal.”
Anonymous
10/15/2021 16:33
Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was waiting for a piece like this, given the changing objectives of the more progressive urbanists. And here it is. Thanks GGWash for being so, so predictable these days.
"But, upzoning isn’t right for Langley Park"
https://ggwash.org/view/82739/why-upzoning-in-gentrifying-neighborhoods-like-langley-park-isnt-always-a-good-idea
The comments on that post, from the same 8 people who comment on every post there, are truly appalling and show GGWash's true colors. They're all basically :we need to upzpne these poor.people thr hell out of Langley Park." Just gross.
But the piece itself argues exactly the opposite: that upzoning would be a mistake because it risks displacing poor people. So the problem you have is with GG Wash commenters, not with the actual site, maybe.
GG Wash leader herself called the article "lazy." Clearly she agrees with the commenters.
https://twitter.com/alexbaca/status/1449025944115613696
Why GG Wash is publishing things its leadership considers "lazy" is beyond comprehension.
Get a grip. It's an Op-Ed. It's common practice to publish pieces the editorial board disagrees with.
Were you aware that the Washington Post prints Henry Olsen columns? Do you have any outrage to spare for that, or have you used it all up tilting against the GGW windmills?
Anonymous
10/15/2021 15:50
Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was waiting for a piece like this, given the changing objectives of the more progressive urbanists. And here it is. Thanks GGWash for being so, so predictable these days.
"But, upzoning isn’t right for Langley Park"
https://ggwash.org/view/82739/why-upzoning-in-gentrifying-neighborhoods-like-langley-park-isnt-always-a-good-idea
The comments on that post, from the same 8 people who comment on every post there, are truly appalling and show GGWash's true colors. They're all basically :we need to upzpne these poor.people thr hell out of Langley Park." Just gross.
But the piece itself argues exactly the opposite: that upzoning would be a mistake because it risks displacing poor people. So the problem you have is with GG Wash commenters, not with the actual site, maybe.
GG Wash leader herself called the article "lazy." Clearly she agrees with the commenters.
https://twitter.com/alexbaca/status/1449025944115613696
Why GG Wash is publishing things its leadership considers "lazy" is beyond comprehension.