![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackThe UK government have apparently recently wheeled out another "hey, lets ban [very very bad already illegal thing] and [perfectly normal but mildly taboo thing] and [lots of other things that happen to sound vaguely similar] from the internet" initiative.
It's almost a convenient microcosm of politics, because it's so obviously pointless. Whenever someone responds to sensible questions (eg. "wouldn't an optional opt-in system for parents work just as well") with stone-walling, they must be hiding their real reasons for supporting it.
What I wonder is, what's the best way to respond to things like that?
0. Demand that the proposal distinguishes between very very bad things, and accidental exposure to somewhat bad things, and mildly taboo good things. ("But surely you're not in favour of X?")
1. Explain why it's an ineffective idea. ("But we have to do _something_!")
2. Explain why this government, or the next government, is obviously going massively exploit the loophole they've created, even though they promise they won't. ("But that won't happen. Honest!")
3. Ask what people arguing in good faith actually want, and see if there's any simpler way of giving it to them.
4. Ask what people arguing in bad faith are trying to hide. (Seriously, a bogus pornography controversy and a royal baby on the same day, what's trying to slip under the radar?)
It's almost a convenient microcosm of politics, because it's so obviously pointless. Whenever someone responds to sensible questions (eg. "wouldn't an optional opt-in system for parents work just as well") with stone-walling, they must be hiding their real reasons for supporting it.
What I wonder is, what's the best way to respond to things like that?
0. Demand that the proposal distinguishes between very very bad things, and accidental exposure to somewhat bad things, and mildly taboo good things. ("But surely you're not in favour of X?")
1. Explain why it's an ineffective idea. ("But we have to do _something_!")
2. Explain why this government, or the next government, is obviously going massively exploit the loophole they've created, even though they promise they won't. ("But that won't happen. Honest!")
3. Ask what people arguing in good faith actually want, and see if there's any simpler way of giving it to them.
4. Ask what people arguing in bad faith are trying to hide. (Seriously, a bogus pornography controversy and a royal baby on the same day, what's trying to slip under the radar?)
no subject
Date: 2013-07-24 08:12 am (UTC)Though very much against being force-fed pornography (especially any that includes coercion or mental/physical damage), none of this current rubbish... sorry, I think I need to go and look at some flowers for a while.