Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 8078061">I'll jump back in: no it is NOT persuasive.&nbsp; Not even in the slightest.The technique you are using isn't just vague, it's odious.&nbsp; What you're doing, essentially, is using a combination of uncertainty and parade-of-horribles fear-mongering to argue for doing nothing.&nbsp; You see this approach all the time, in any place where one group of people is comfy with the status quo and doesn't want to see anything change.&nbsp; &quot;Oh, no, you can't start believing women...an innocent man might (GASP) lose his job!&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Oh, no, you can't start taxing carried interest as income...would would invest in yet-another-startup that delivers sushi to young San Francisco professionals?&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Oh, no, you can't change anything in D&amp;D that might show cultural sensitivity...the next step after that is burning Shakespeare!&quot;And, sure, those protestations always go hand-in-hand with claims to really care about the issue, and take it very seriously. But any solution offered in return isn't really a solution.&nbsp; &quot;I take this very seriously, but let's not rush and do anything hasty.&nbsp; What we really need is another commission to study the problem.&quot;&nbsp; But anything that causes, or might cause, even the most minor inconvenience to the empowered group is rejected as too risky, too fraught, too unknown, too...slippery.It's a despicable technique that, unfortunately, is highly effective because it lets people who are afraid of change (and, again, typically have disproportionate influence) kick the can down the road.&nbsp; It's pathetic.&nbsp; And cowardly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 8078061"] I'll jump back in: no it is NOT persuasive. Not even in the slightest. The technique you are using isn't just vague, it's odious. What you're doing, essentially, is using a combination of uncertainty and parade-of-horribles fear-mongering to argue for doing nothing. You see this approach all the time, in any place where one group of people is comfy with the status quo and doesn't want to see anything change. "Oh, no, you can't start believing women...an innocent man might (GASP) lose his job!" "Oh, no, you can't start taxing carried interest as income...would would invest in yet-another-startup that delivers sushi to young San Francisco professionals?" "Oh, no, you can't change anything in D&D that might show cultural sensitivity...the next step after that is burning Shakespeare!" And, sure, those protestations always go hand-in-hand with claims to really care about the issue, and take it very seriously. But any solution offered in return isn't really a solution. "I take this [I]very[/I] seriously, but let's not rush and do anything hasty. What we [I]really[/I] need is another commission to study the problem." But anything that causes, or might cause, even the most minor inconvenience to the empowered group is rejected as too risky, too fraught, too unknown, too...slippery. It's a despicable technique that, unfortunately, is highly effective because it lets people who are afraid of change (and, again, typically have disproportionate influence) kick the can down the road. It's pathetic. And cowardly. [/QUOTE]

Verification