4 ms·
Generally I have always hated the argument that anyone opposed to anything needs to have a better solution before their opinion is valid and will be taken into
by maym86 8y ago
Generally I have always hated the argument that anyone opposed to anything needs to have a better solution before their opinion is valid and will be taken into account.
Sometimes it's clear how a particular solution is negative but beyond that we don't have the breath or depth of knowledge to suggest the alternative or it is not our job to spend the time to come up with one. Yet we may have enough experience in a particular aspect of it to know about a significant downside of the choice.
It always just seems like a way of dismissing valid criticism by someone who supports the choice and not addressing the criticism.
Edit: grammar & spelling
- silverlake 8y agoThere often isn’t a good solution, only a bunch of “bad” solutions. Pointing out that they are bad is useless to everyone. GitHub wanted to be a successful independent company. That failed. What is the next least bad solution before bankruptcy?
- maym86 8y ago> Pointing out that they are bad is useless to everyone. Only if the people making the decision are comptent and already considered the issues.
- slowmovintarget 8y ago> Pointing out that they are bad is useless to everyone. This is false. Some people may not have given the matter consideration. When they don't they may accept the bad solution as normal, and "normal" often rightly or wrongly leads people to jump to the conclusion that the solution is proper. I've many times had to argue against something where the argument in favor was "we've always done it that way." Pointing out that a solution is bad records challenges that can be met and satisfied in producing a new solution. But if no one notices, or those who do never say anything, then people will tend to assume it is normal and therefore proper.