If NIMBY is when you support something in principle but not in your personal life, what is the opposite condition where you oppose something on general principle but support it in your personal life?
NIMBY would be things like prisons, nuclear power, higher taxes, windmills, etc. Many people support them in principle, they just don’t want them in their personal life.
What about people who are ideologically opposed to things like environmental regulation or socialized medicine on general principle, but who want the government to clean their local environment and want their medicare at 65?
Also, I don’t consider YIMBY the opposite based on my definition. I’m looking for a situation where someone is opposed to a concept or principle, until it affects them personally and then they want it. The opposite of being in favor of a concept or principle until it affects them personally and then they don’t want it.
NIMBY is not exactly hypocrisy since the argument may be that the location of a proposed facility may actually be inappropriate. But people who expect the government to act to their advantage in a way that they are ideologically opposed to are just hypocrites.
While I think you’re misunderstanding NIMBYism (it’s normally purely about location, not personal impact), here are some things (some) people support for themselves but oppose for the general public:[ul]
[li]social welfare programs[/li][li]military bases, and military/government contracts[/li][li]abortion[/li][li]freedom of religion[/li][li]logging, mining, other environmentally-damaging activities that create jobs[/li][li]and, of course, driving like you’re the only person on the road.[/li][/ul]
I’ve known people who were against welfare until they needed it. It was an example as the OP asked for. Maybe I should have written “how about welfare?”.
The shoehorn clenched between your teeth is not a phrase I am familiar with. I was implying nothing in my post, I have no idea what you infered.
Shoehorn. One is said to “shoehorn” something into a conversation when they try to insert a pet peeve or subject into a conversation about something else. I think I brought it up not because you were actually attempting to do this…but because I have an incredible migraine. Sorry about that.
Nimby is in it’s basic form you (some other people) must suffer for the good of society while that does not apply to ‘me’, because I am above you in this society.
The opposite would be one who is willing to suffer by accepting unpleasantness for the betterment of society because he/she thinks they are of a lower status in society.
I’m not sure what you mean by “purely about location, not personal impact”. In my experience when it comes to NIMBY , the location and personal impact are the same thing. Don’t put the drug program,shelter,sewage treatment plant ,etc in my neighborhood because it will increase traffic ,cause property values to drop,overcrowd the schools. Let those things happen to some other neighborhood where I don’t live. And the same goes for the opposite of NIMBY, whatever that ends up being called. My state is planning to close a few prisons, and the subject came up during legislative budget hearings. It seemed like all the legislators from those areas could talk about were the jobs that were going to be lost in their communities , that their towns would have to raise taxes to make up for the lost inmate work crews, etc. No one was arguing to keep all the prisons open ( I guess because they knew that couldn’t be justified.) They were only arguing that the one in their district shouldn’t be closed.
I think the opposite of NIMBY would be a community that WANTS some nasty or unpleasant facility built in their area because it often means jobs and/or tax money. Take for example a oil refinery. Nasty, smelly, but thousands of good paying jobs. Another is a prison.
A good example right now are cell phone towers. You would be surprised at how much those make.
And power lines. Each and every pole generates local tax revenue.
