>complaining about removing programs and reducing staff implies either the status quo is just right or it's already not enough. It doesn't imply that. How coul

>complaining about removing programs and reducing staff implies either the status quo is just right or it's already not enough. It doesn't imply that. How could one possibly feel this is comparable to a numeric slider being adjusted, where everybody simply has an opinion about which number it should be at? For every single cut: What, specifically, is being cut? By how much? Which positions? How is the cut being executed? What's the ostensible reason/expected outcome? What's the actual motivation? Under what authority/process? What are the side effects? Are there other ways of improving the process besides cuts? Is the person doing it also mocking the people who they're firing? People give a shit about a lot of things, and they don't need to have all these questions in their head explicitly to do so. Systems and human opinions aren't that simple - especially super-gigantic systems and the opinions of hundreds of millions of people.