Dave Nablarro
@nibblesnaba.bsky.social
Yeller into the wind about affordable housing, high usage consumer of nba chitter chatter, gamer, foodie. DMVer.
I absolutely don’t want the GOP to win. I just don’t buy the idea that accountability has to be abandoned to stop them, or that anyone has a guaranteed map for what “wins elections” in every cycle.
November 30, 2025 at 3:22 AM
I absolutely don’t want the GOP to win. I just don’t buy the idea that accountability has to be abandoned to stop them, or that anyone has a guaranteed map for what “wins elections” in every cycle.
You’re assuming that advocating accountability means I’m comfortable with harm. I’m not. I’m questioning the idea that the only moral path is the one that trades principle for presumed electability.
November 30, 2025 at 1:46 AM
You’re assuming that advocating accountability means I’m comfortable with harm. I’m not. I’m questioning the idea that the only moral path is the one that trades principle for presumed electability.
If turnout defines sincerity, then every policy loss means the values were fake, which is a lazy way to avoid thinking about why mobilization failed.
November 30, 2025 at 1:33 AM
If turnout defines sincerity, then every policy loss means the values were fake, which is a lazy way to avoid thinking about why mobilization failed.
I get that my earlier “you’re not wrong” could read like I was reinforcing a single strategy as inevitable. What I’m trying to say more clearly is that political viability and moral accountability don’t have to be mutually exclusive, even if they’re in tension.
November 29, 2025 at 7:53 PM
I get that my earlier “you’re not wrong” could read like I was reinforcing a single strategy as inevitable. What I’m trying to say more clearly is that political viability and moral accountability don’t have to be mutually exclusive, even if they’re in tension.
Seems you’ve defaulted to the exact “college Democrat” behavior you mock.
November 29, 2025 at 4:39 AM
Seems you’ve defaulted to the exact “college Democrat” behavior you mock.
Ok? And calling for accountability preempts that?
November 29, 2025 at 4:34 AM
Ok? And calling for accountability preempts that?
You’re saying insisting on a principle is anti-democratic, but insisting everyone subordinate principle to electoral strategy isn’t neutral either it’s just a different version of prescribing how people “should” participate.
November 29, 2025 at 4:29 AM
You’re saying insisting on a principle is anti-democratic, but insisting everyone subordinate principle to electoral strategy isn’t neutral either it’s just a different version of prescribing how people “should” participate.
If your moral framework collapses the moment it polls badly, you don’t have one, you have branding.
November 29, 2025 at 4:19 AM
If your moral framework collapses the moment it polls badly, you don’t have one, you have branding.
Yes, I could’ve stopped where you plateaued.
November 29, 2025 at 4:15 AM
Yes, I could’ve stopped where you plateaued.
If someone believes accountability should exist even when it’s politically costly, that isn’t necessarily “preferring” the GOP. It may simply reflect a belief that legal and ethical principles shouldn’t depend entirely on domestic election incentives
November 29, 2025 at 4:12 AM
If someone believes accountability should exist even when it’s politically costly, that isn’t necessarily “preferring” the GOP. It may simply reflect a belief that legal and ethical principles shouldn’t depend entirely on domestic election incentives
You’re not wrong about the politics, you’re just treating political impossibility as a moral muzzle. The demand for accountability isn’t about “feeling virtuous.” It’s about refusing to pre-emptively surrender to the assumption that power answers only to itself.
November 29, 2025 at 4:04 AM
You’re not wrong about the politics, you’re just treating political impossibility as a moral muzzle. The demand for accountability isn’t about “feeling virtuous.” It’s about refusing to pre-emptively surrender to the assumption that power answers only to itself.
So yes to supply, yes to growth, and yes to building a lot more in high-amenity places. But pairing that with anti-displacement and real access is what makes the gains durable and widely shared. Growth that includes everyone beats growth that leaves patterns untouched.
November 20, 2025 at 9:31 PM
So yes to supply, yes to growth, and yes to building a lot more in high-amenity places. But pairing that with anti-displacement and real access is what makes the gains durable and widely shared. Growth that includes everyone beats growth that leaves patterns untouched.
But affordability isn’t just a nostalgic benchmark. It’s about distribution. Who gets to stay, who gets pushed out, and who actually benefits from growth. Averages can improve even while the same groups remain priced out of high-opportunity areas.
November 20, 2025 at 9:31 PM
But affordability isn’t just a nostalgic benchmark. It’s about distribution. Who gets to stay, who gets pushed out, and who actually benefits from growth. Averages can improve even while the same groups remain priced out of high-opportunity areas.
A fully YIMBIfied country would raise productivity, mobility, and overall welfare. On that part, totally agree. More housing is good for the economy and for people’s ability to move, form households, and access opportunity.
November 20, 2025 at 9:30 PM
A fully YIMBIfied country would raise productivity, mobility, and overall welfare. On that part, totally agree. More housing is good for the economy and for people’s ability to move, form households, and access opportunity.
If “engaging with the substance” just means agreeing with his framing, then sure, guilty. But disagreement isn’t a “textbook display” of anything except that his point can’t withstand pushback.
November 16, 2025 at 4:35 PM
If “engaging with the substance” just means agreeing with his framing, then sure, guilty. But disagreement isn’t a “textbook display” of anything except that his point can’t withstand pushback.
At this point it feels less like you’re worried about misuse of the word and more like you need everyone to know you’re the guy who really understands “fascism.” Congrats, but that obsession says a lot more than the people you’re lecturing.
November 16, 2025 at 4:24 PM
At this point it feels less like you’re worried about misuse of the word and more like you need everyone to know you’re the guy who really understands “fascism.” Congrats, but that obsession says a lot more than the people you’re lecturing.
If so many people keep reaching for the same historical analogy, maybe the issue isn’t their imagination, it’s what they’re seeing. Calling it melodrama is easier than asking why the warning lights are flashing for them in the first place.
November 16, 2025 at 4:21 PM
If so many people keep reaching for the same historical analogy, maybe the issue isn’t their imagination, it’s what they’re seeing. Calling it melodrama is easier than asking why the warning lights are flashing for them in the first place.
You’re calling people’s concern a resistance-fantasy hobby, but that dodges the point: they see authoritarian creep and you don’t want to face it. The “White Rose cosplay” line is a slick jab, but it’s also a way to avoid engaging with the substance.
November 16, 2025 at 4:20 PM
You’re calling people’s concern a resistance-fantasy hobby, but that dodges the point: they see authoritarian creep and you don’t want to face it. The “White Rose cosplay” line is a slick jab, but it’s also a way to avoid engaging with the substance.
Sooo what should we do about it?
December 14, 2024 at 8:04 PM
Sooo what should we do about it?