If you want to call it strawmanning then I was mirroring the tactic of the author in the article. I thought it ignorant and pretentious to call tradition "smarter" as if changes, in general, are dumber; that's a strawman. And of course it's obvious, some things that are in place are in place because they're good, you should understand it first. And then you should likewise understand the need for changes; both are valid. Nowhere in my reply did I invalidate tradition, more defending the need for changes sometimes and pointing out the folly of the title.
So is your comment boiling down to "change is good and so is keeping things unchanged" ?
That are you trying to say? I'm not being facetious I'm just trying to get at what you responding to unless you are just responding to the clickbait title.
We do have the saying of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" for a reason. Change isn't inherently good. But obviously if something is broken it needs to be fixed which is a process of change.
