3 ms·
> Sigh, this again. has this kind of initial dismissal ever won anyone any favor in an argument? I see it all over the thread, and I find myself having a hard
by serf 4y ago
> Sigh, this again.
has this kind of initial dismissal ever won anyone any favor in an argument?
I see it all over the thread, and I find myself having a hard time wanting to consider the argument afterwards even if I am personally aligned with them just because it seems so inconsiderate and rude.
Is it supposed to signal your experience in the field, having heard this argument so many times -- or does it signal the opponents inexperience? Either way I find that approach to come off as arrogant and rude.
- CamperBob2 4y agoAgreed, it was a low-effort rebuttal to a low-effort post, and I feel bad for contributing to the noise floor on here by taking the bait. The admins make it clear that neither behavior is wanted, but the argument in question really gets my goat. In my area, road diets and similar ways to deny demand for increased capacity aren't just fallacious arguments, but key elements of public policy that are seemingly engineered to waste time and fuel while contributing to pollution. The only time such arguments are valid are when they've already been applied farther downstream, where the next bottleneck is inevitably cited as a reason why expanding capacity in a given area "won't work." Similar policies could be applied in many other places, yielding outcomes that pretty much everyone would agree are worse than the status quo, yet for some reason they always find a receptive audience when the problem domain is transportation.