“Something should be done, so let’s do something stupid and harmful, and all you critics have nothing to add so our stupid thing that causes harm is what you must accept”.

That’s some incredible logic.

It's not logically inconsistent for someone to think that one proposal is worse than the status quo without having an alternative that's better than the status quo. Maybe the reason that nothing has been done yet is because every "solution" that's been proposed including this one, are worse than the problem it's supposed to solve.

The internet is also full of bad takes like "the ends justify the means" and "the solution to this problem is obvious and no one has done it because they're evil/stupid/lazy".

If this is the best we can do, we shouldn't have done anything.

I like an idea I first saw in Debian's general resolution process: all votes have a "further discussion" option, and often a "retain the status quo" option, and the voting system lets people use them effectively.

In the UK parliament (as in many contexts) a vote against something could mean that the person doesn't think there's a problem to be fixed, or it could mean that they don't think this is the right fix -- and that could be because it's too extreme or because it's not extreme enough. That's supposed to be addressed by the committee stages, or by amendments, but it's really hard to divine actual preference from a series of yes/no votes.

> then suggest something else that actually addresses the problem

As opposed to the original suggestion that doesn't actually address the problem? How is proposing that in the first place more honest than calling it out?