I've been working on a really good post that simply and clearly explains what I think is wrong with the precedent and slippery slope arguments that keep being raised. But since I'm not Cindy, I can't accomplish that, so I give you my half-baked effort instead:
I've seen a lot of Precedent and Slippery Slope arguments to bolster the proposition that we should not do something that may be right (truncate voting on the strike issue, or endorse the writer's strike), because something later might end up being done that is wrong (truncate voting on other issues, or endorse a more controversial position like a political candidate). The fallacy that presents itself in these arguments is the failure to assess the likelihood of the later thing actually happening.
Does endorsing the writer's strike bring us infinitesimally closer to endorsing a political candidate down the road? Yes. Is there any actual chance of this board endorsing a political candidate? Not in a million years. Not even if Tim Minear was running for president. Because our community possesses a level of communal common sense that makes that eventuality nearly impossible.
The slippery slope/precedent argument is impossible to counter because it is always going to be true, even if unlikely. To discount or ignore a likeliness analysis however undercuts the merits of the proposal.
A is right. A may bring us infinitesimally closer to B. B is wrong. Therefore A is wrong.
Or A is right. A may bring us infinitesimally closer to B.
B is never likely to occur.
B is wrong. Is A still wrong? No. And this is the logical fallacy.
Maybe this is tempting the devil, but I have yet to see any dissent to the writer's position in this strike. So if everyone supports them, and the only dissent is to the precedent of showing them support, aren't we falling prey to this logical fallacy?
Oooh, oooh! What if it replaces the random quote generator in the upper right? 'Cause, y'know, we wouldn't have the quotes without the writers!
I love this. And if for some reason the graphic needs to go elsewhere, we could replace the quote with something like: "When the WGA strike ends, there will be amusing quotes here, written by WGA members."
Oooh, oooh! What if it replaces the random quote generator in the upper right? 'Cause, y'know, we wouldn't have the quotes without the writers!
That's made of awesome, right there. I love it.
I'll add that to the proposal before voting.
When are we voting?
I have yet to see any dissent to the writer's position in this strike
This is so not the point. The vote is where we'd allow people to express their dissent. And even if the vote is 100% for--we don't get to decide what quiet people are thinking just because we're all gung ho.
Doesn't the fact that connie's stood up and said she doesn't think it's a good idea count for anything?
Aw, I think it's cute, but it seems like punishing ourselves for no reason! It's not like anyone gets residuals from the RQG anyway.
Layout-wise, though, it's a fine idea.
Voting is supposed to start tomorrow at noon, Allyson.
Doesn't the fact that connie's stood up and said she doesn't think it's a good idea count for anything?
First of all, I applaud connie for speaking up. And clearly I read her post thoroughly when I responded with my post about the precedent argument. Which was her argument. She did not dissent to the writer's position.
Where did I give you the impression that I thought her post didn't count for anything?
Okay, here's the thing. I've been quiet about this, and I've been trying to formulate whether or not to speak up.
I'm actually on the fence about this issue.
This may seem like splitting hairs to some folks, but my position isn't so much a "Support the writers" as it is a complete lack of support of the studios.
I'm probably oversensitive about this, but I hate the feeling of the writers getting this outpouring of support while so many of the other folks being hit by this situation are either a last paragraph mention or not mentioned at all. The producers are the ones causing this. I guess I'd rather see a logo that says Buffistas think the studios are evil, than one with another supporting the writers.
The vote is where we'd allow people to express their dissent. And even if the vote is 100% for--we don't get to decide what quiet people are thinking just because we're all gung ho.
This. We don't know what the board as a whole thinks on an issue until we vote.
Doesn't the fact that connie's stood up and said she doesn't think it's a good idea count for anything?
Counts for me. And it shows (me) that there is not purely unanimous consent on this issue.
