2 ms·
After a sympathetic reading of your comment, I cannot grasp this apparently contradictory sentence: "Democracy can only function with some kind of consensual co
by someguydave 8y ago
After a sympathetic reading of your comment, I cannot grasp this apparently contradictory sentence:
"Democracy can only function with some kind of consensual consensus."
After reading that sentence unsympathetically, I think that you mean that democracy cannot survive without an official priestly class mediating truth for the masses. Is that too cynical?
- homarp 8y agothe way I read "consensual consensus" citizen A thinks roglob is gree citizen B thinks roglob is purp all citizens need to know what roglob is in order to function(live/make money/sleep/whatever) and to a certain extent have the same 'understanding' of roglob So a "consensual consensus" means citizens A and B agree that in order to function(live/...) roglop starts with prue... the rest of the letters will be decided 'later', and that's enough for all citizens to function. (later being not fully specified out) Implications are: A and B have to change the way they live, a bit, based on the "consensus" roglop. And of course, it assumes that A and B accept to be 'a society' and accept that having a single roglop is good. (which, in itself, is another roglop,... it's roglops all the way down)