![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mc776Paraphrased below is a certain sentiment that seems to make intuitive sense as a rebuttal in the context of a tone argument:
The problem is that it is only true if there wasn't a controversy to begin with.
Let's take that analogy further:
Suppose you were senior management - not the owner, but you do have some say and thus some responsibility - in a medium-large-ish business.
This business depends on a certain large piece of machinery kept in a certain building. In all respects it is similar to the one your competitors use without issue.
The way this machine functions, it services the building to such an extent that, if it were affixed in any way to the building (which is affixed to the land and is not itself a chattel) there would be a strong argument that it would be a fixture/immovable and subject to significantly different - and much worse for the business - treatment for both tax purposes and under the lease of the land and building. Such affixation would also significantly increase your overhead and downtime during maintenance work, and reduce the usable floor space in the building.
In other words, affixing this machine will significantly inconvenience all staff and cut into your bonus, and look really bad on your resume if you ever try to switch companies.
None of your competitors do this. You know of three companies in this field that do: one is on another continent; the second is on an airship; the third is a notoriously dysfunctional corporate backstabbing mess that delivers a subpar product and coasts on marketing based on decades of brand recognition.
The machine works just fine in place without any additional support. Anything powerful enough to knock it over would have already destroyed the building.
Now suppose a large vocal minority of senior management keep insisting that machines of this kind represent a special exception where the law of gravity is not reliable. They insist on numerous safety protocols including affixing the machine to the building, all justified solely or predominantly on the unpredictable-gravity model.
Prior attempts to reason with them directly have been met with gaslighting and dismissal, and further entrenching of their position.
You know some of these guys have investments in the companies that sell the additional equipment needed for all this. Your boss refuses to do anything when you bring this up, in part because there's already been a history of bad blood between you (along with a few of your coworkers) and this vocal minority, and the boss feels like this is turning into a matter of crying wolf.
You do not have the power to overrule this vocal minority unilaterally, but there are numerous other senior management and staff who may listen to you - or them. You know your boss will eventually go with the general drift of wherever the lot of you end up.
Now, supposing all that, how vocal would you be in asserting the application of the law of gravity?
The fact that these people keep vociferously shouting that something is the case suggests that it is not, or at least it is not a natural fact that is independent of their assertion. After all, no one gets worked up over asserting that the laws of gravity apply.
The problem is that it is only true if there wasn't a controversy to begin with.
Let's take that analogy further:
Suppose you were senior management - not the owner, but you do have some say and thus some responsibility - in a medium-large-ish business.
This business depends on a certain large piece of machinery kept in a certain building. In all respects it is similar to the one your competitors use without issue.
The way this machine functions, it services the building to such an extent that, if it were affixed in any way to the building (which is affixed to the land and is not itself a chattel) there would be a strong argument that it would be a fixture/immovable and subject to significantly different - and much worse for the business - treatment for both tax purposes and under the lease of the land and building. Such affixation would also significantly increase your overhead and downtime during maintenance work, and reduce the usable floor space in the building.
In other words, affixing this machine will significantly inconvenience all staff and cut into your bonus, and look really bad on your resume if you ever try to switch companies.
None of your competitors do this. You know of three companies in this field that do: one is on another continent; the second is on an airship; the third is a notoriously dysfunctional corporate backstabbing mess that delivers a subpar product and coasts on marketing based on decades of brand recognition.
The machine works just fine in place without any additional support. Anything powerful enough to knock it over would have already destroyed the building.
Now suppose a large vocal minority of senior management keep insisting that machines of this kind represent a special exception where the law of gravity is not reliable. They insist on numerous safety protocols including affixing the machine to the building, all justified solely or predominantly on the unpredictable-gravity model.
Prior attempts to reason with them directly have been met with gaslighting and dismissal, and further entrenching of their position.
You know some of these guys have investments in the companies that sell the additional equipment needed for all this. Your boss refuses to do anything when you bring this up, in part because there's already been a history of bad blood between you (along with a few of your coworkers) and this vocal minority, and the boss feels like this is turning into a matter of crying wolf.
You do not have the power to overrule this vocal minority unilaterally, but there are numerous other senior management and staff who may listen to you - or them. You know your boss will eventually go with the general drift of wherever the lot of you end up.
Now, supposing all that, how vocal would you be in asserting the application of the law of gravity?
(no subject)
Date: June 8th, 2019 03:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: June 8th, 2019 05:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: June 8th, 2019 20:46 (UTC)Single cause seems to fit well enough, of the ones listed.