> Why is it rhetoric? This goes beyond whatever malignant thing was perceived in this study, but why is it a rhetorical non-answer?

You seem hung-up on my using the word rhetoric. Just so we’re on the same page here:

> rhetoric, n : the art of speaking or writing effectively: b)the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion

The business writing class I took in college was called Business Rhetoric. It’s not a bad word.

If you’re crafting arguments to get other people to support specific actions or products or policies or whatever, that is unambiguously rhetoric.

> this feels like real rhetoric.

Sure? Rhetoric that implores people to value their principles over theoretical security concerns or FOMO or greed? I wouldn’t exactly call that rakish.

It’s a non-answer because if you really feel doing something is bad, consider yourself a consequential actor in the world whose contributions meaningfully advance the projects you work on, then why would you want to help someone be there first to do a bad thing? If you don’t feel it’s bad, then there’s no problem. You’re just living your life. That is clearly not the position expressed by the content I responded to. If there are actual concrete concerns that don’t essentially boil down to “well they’re going to make that money before I do,” then that would be an actual answer.