The "eventually [bad structural thing] just goes away on its own" arguments are so seductive. I say that as a member of the previously seduced. > A solution that imposes zero cost on me for something I'm unaffected by anyway? Oh yes, that's clearly the most reasonable one!
I think the truly amazing part of that belief is that it's often almost immediately followed by a, "if you try to do something, the antagonism will reinforce the bad behavior!" defense. Impressive structural resilience is recognized, but asymmetrically so.