New Yorker: "A Clear Violation of Obama's Promise"

[TheKentuckian]

204. There is no strawman. Strawman is not an acronym for objectives. The objective is net neutrality

Now if what you want to do is discuss the downsides and obstacles of a firm course to that objective then great, have at it but don't set yourself up as so me paragon of facts and truth when what you are doing is blowing off the objective because of "obstacles" that you don't really articulate nor does the FCC (granted jeff does but that is a different debate about the desirability of the objective not if it is obtainable).

If you folks were saying something like "in light of the court ruling preventing a middle path which makes us choose between net neutrality and the ability for companies to set up tiers, is net neutrality still the objective?", I bet the discussion would be different in it's tone.

However, that isn't seemingly what the objective is because since the FCC isn't actually trying to have that conversation with the public but has instead decided that it is most important to retain tiering, you're stuck defending that position so it becomes a tedious game of "look over there!" because some folks believe it is their job to paper over the punting on the goal, most pretending that the court makes it impossible when it does nothing of the sort.

When the hell did we make tiers a policy priority? Never, which is why you find yourself backing into that your actual argument is their importance despite never saying it, boxed in by logic due to jumping in and forcefully arguing for nothing other than don't blame the administration.

I also think it is dishonest to be demanding folks "offer solutions" to your scarcely articulated concerns. The court laid out the solution, if you have problems with the effects of the clear solution then have at it but how does it make any sense to expect people that haven't moved from their objective to make your argument?

To utilize this debate tactic effectively you must first get buy in from the opposition on your obstacles because until you do they have no obligation to make them any priority at all, much less take down their own primary objective.

Understandable if the prime directive is defense of the administration as their response didn't provide enough breathing room to be intellectually honest and consistent in a manner that accepts that reality, kinda leaving you flailing from a weird position that must pretend we had a set up debate that left us with two conflicting goals in light of a court ruling and further, we had decided that the more important of the two was tiering.