re: #146 reine.de.tout

Revkin’s thought, all by itself, to offer incentives for smaller families, is innocuous.

Actually, I don’t really see where you’re going after this. Of course, every innocuous thought can be twisted and turned into something else. That doesn’t make it any less innocuous.
Sometimes, a thought may seem innocuous, but it is really a dog whistle, or it has ramifications not readilily visible, or it deliberately or not relies on and feeds an already existing racist or otherwise bad tradition. So it’s really not innocuous. I don’t see how that is the case here.