At this point, the contours of the argument you're trying to have here are abundantly clear. You'd like me to believe that the term NIMBY doesn't mean "opposition to new things being built in proximity to people's houses", but rather "only the bad kinds of opposition to new things being built in proximity to people's houses". OK. I get it. I disagree. It doesn't seem clear that there's a rich vein of curious conversation to be mined out of this semantic dispute, so maybe we just leave it here.
You're mistaken - I have no problem with two people having different definitions for "NIMBY" (A. Objecting to something being built, reasonableness not being judged, and B. Objecting to something being built unreasonably; though certainly definition B is more common colloquially). But your post was a criticism of these people, and an implication that they are hypocrites for not considering themselves representative of "NIMBY tropes", which would be nonsensical unless you are using definition B (again, barring more details of the case).
I.e. you are implying "ugh, these people are NIMBYs and won't admit it", followed in later posts by implying, "there's nothing inherently bad about being NIMBY", which is tonally confusing.
The "rich vein" in this case is the clarification. What you're talking about in your original post is important and interesting. I oppose NIMBYism broadly speaking. I am not disagreeing with you on some semantics irrelevant to the main point of your post - I am commenting on the validity of one of its central points. Humanity tends to be one of the first things we throw out when we find ourselves on two "sides" of some societal disagreement (especially when our "opponents" are not very articulate, which pretty much everybody at a community meeting is not), and that's the relevant part I'm commenting on.
