3 ms·

And as always, the answer to "something should be done, but not this" is "then suggest something else that actually addresses the problem". The internet is ful

by o11c 1y ago

And as always, the answer to "something should be done, but not this" is "then suggest something else that actually addresses the problem". The internet is full of dishonest "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."

debugnik 1y ago
> then suggest something else that actually addresses the problem As opposed to the original suggestion that doesn't actually address the problem? How is proposing that in the first place more honest than calling it out?
chris_wot 1y ago
“Something should be done, so let’s do something stupid and harmful, and all you critics have nothing to add so our stupid thing that causes harm is what you must accept”. That’s some incredible logic.
- o11c 1y ago
  I never once said we had to settle for this solution. I absolutely said that there is a real problem, and the people in the best position to make a real solution have absolutely no desire to do anything about it. Remember that previous status quo was "I'd rather make money off of child abuse, because nobody is stopping us". This is the end result of self-regulation, so show me something better.
  - chris_wot 1y ago
    Yes, but implicit in your statement was that the awful solution should be implemented if you don’t have a better solution. I don’t have a better solution. But I don’t need to accept a detrimental “solution” needs to be implemented. Nor am I obligated to find the better solution.
saghm 1y ago
It's not logically inconsistent for someone to think that one proposal is worse than the status quo without having an alternative that's better than the status quo. Maybe the reason that nothing has been done yet is because every "solution" that's been proposed including this one, are worse than the problem it's supposed to solve. The internet is also full of bad takes like "the ends justify the means" and "the solution to this problem is obvious and no one has done it because they're evil/stupid/lazy".
andrewaylett 1y ago
If this is the best we can do, we shouldn't have done anything. I like an idea I first saw in Debian's general resolution process: all votes have a "further discussion" option, and often a "retain the status quo" option, and the voting system lets people use them effectively. In the UK parliament (as in many contexts) a vote against something could mean that the person doesn't think there's a problem to be fixed, or it could mean that they don't think this is the right fix -- and that could be because it's too extreme or because it's not extreme enough. That's supposed to be addressed by the committee stages, or by amendments, but it's really hard to divine actual preference from a series of yes/no votes.

by o11c 1y ago

debugnik 1y ago

> then suggest something else that actually addresses the problem As opposed to the original suggestion that doesn't actually address the problem? How is proposing that in the first place more honest than calling it out?

chris_wot 1y ago

“Something should be done, so let’s do something stupid and harmful, and all you critics have nothing to add so our stupid thing that causes harm is what you must accept”. That’s some incredible logic.

o11c 1y ago
I never once said we had to settle for this solution. I absolutely said that there is a real problem, and the people in the best position to make a real solution have absolutely no desire to do anything about it. Remember that previous status quo was "I'd rather make money off of child abuse, because nobody is stopping us". This is the end result of self-regulation, so show me something better.
- chris_wot 1y ago
  Yes, but implicit in your statement was that the awful solution should be implemented if you don’t have a better solution. I don’t have a better solution. But I don’t need to accept a detrimental “solution” needs to be implemented. Nor am I obligated to find the better solution.

saghm 1y ago

It's not logically inconsistent for someone to think that one proposal is worse than the status quo without having an alternative that's better than the status quo. Maybe the reason that nothing has been done yet is because every "solution" that's been proposed including this one, are worse than the problem it's supposed to solve. The internet is also full of bad takes like "the ends justify the means" and "the solution to this problem is obvious and no one has done it because they're evil/stupid/lazy".

andrewaylett 1y ago

If this is the best we can do, we shouldn't have done anything. I like an idea I first saw in Debian's general resolution process: all votes have a "further discussion" option, and often a "retain the status quo" option, and the voting system lets people use them effectively. In the UK parliament (as in many contexts) a vote against something could mean that the person doesn't think there's a problem to be fixed, or it could mean that they don't think this is the right fix -- and that could be because it's too extreme or because it's not extreme enough. That's supposed to be addressed by the committee stages, or by amendments, but it's really hard to divine actual preference from a series of yes/no votes.