Yeh. Though I think it’s not explicit enough? A bit open to literal interpretation only. I actually see it as “too little” new information that’s of utility to

Yeh. Though I think it’s not explicit enough? A bit open to literal interpretation only. I actually see it as “too little” new information that’s of utility to the general populace. We spend then “too much” time focused on “too few ideas that matter”. Like what celebs eat is discussed more than environment, and on and on. Too little new progress is made to satisfy these less discussed but ultimately far more important problems. Thinking Keynes, our demand has been nudged to focus on consumerism, celebrity, gainz!. But we maybe need to balance that with the demands of the literal majority being shat on. I’ve seen it discussed here too, that focusing on poverty via a statistic emotionally numbs analysis, ignoring that it’s still hundreds of thousands or whatever number it is, of real people barely scraping by. We’re fetishizing opinions that we’re obliged to import as education from our parents and institutions, which is unavoidable. What is avoidable and manageable is the content of those opinions. Free speech is generating whatever syntax you want. You’re not owed a society that kowtows to the embedded semantics.