[selcuka]

> Psychologists call this black or white thinking

The same can be told for your thinking. You (and several other posters) lumped several arguments into the same Nirvana fallacy [1]:

1. It's not 100% effective

2. It's only 50% effective

3. It is not even 10% effective

These are very different from each other. The first one may actually mean what you described (either something works perfectly or it's useless) but the others must be discussed separately.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

[kelseyfrog]

ok, then what's the minimum efficacy such that you'll consider it viable?

[selcuka]

Again, it's not a black or white issue. There is no universal constant threshold where it suddenly becomes viable. If you ask my personal opinion, I would say:

- If it's not even 10% effective, don't waste any resources. Replace it with another method.

- If it's 10% - 50% effective, improve it.

- If it's >50% effective, it's probably fine, leave it.

My point it that there can be many other shades of grey here. It's not fair to lump all opponents of the current implementation into the same basket.

[kelseyfrog]

Ok, then maybe what I'm saying applies to Aeolun and not you.

It looks like you decided to self-insert into a critique that doesn't involve you and then decide that means the critique is wrong.

[selcuka]

No, it applies to Aeolun. That was my original point. You asked me my personal opinion and changed the goal post when I replied.

Also yes, that's how online forums work. I'm surprised that you haven't figured it out yourself even though you self-inserted into a critique of the social media ban that doesn't involve you.

[kelseyfrog]

Adding commentary is way different than coming after someone.

You're acting like I accused you of black or white thinking. If you caught a stray, it's because of interpellation.