> Having a different standard of acceptability is not "part of a problem", from my perspective of what constitutes problems. Since you're in favour of said pol

> Having a different standard of acceptability is not "part of a problem", from my perspective of what constitutes problems. Since you're in favour of said policy, I'm going to put aside whether or not it's a good idea to do this. More simply, my point is that claiming "things could be worse" is a problem and only serves as a path for things to get worse. Politics is like a plane crash. You can choose to correct course when the sensors start pointing in the wrong direction. If you keep going, you can still try to alleviate the issues even when it's too late to prevent some kind of disaster. You can crash and maybe still salvage something. But at no point in that whole chain of events is it productive to say "things could be worse". Ok, things could be worse. Then what do you do when they do get worse?