4 ms·
Of course it's exhausting. It would be less exhausting if more people paid attention to these things instead of viewing it as someone else's problem.
by cycloptic 6y ago
Of course it's exhausting. It would be less exhausting if more people paid attention to these things instead of viewing it as someone else's problem.
- LatteLazy 6y agoThat's not true though is it? The more people get involved, the more opinions you need to weigh and the more consensus you need to get to even 1 stance. Getting 10 people to agree a stance on the 10 issues facing you is much much easier than getting 7bn people to agree on the billions of possible issues in the known universe. That's sort of my whole point: eithe limit the issues you have to take a stance on, or watch the amount of time taken up with stances grown exponentially.
- cycloptic 6y agoIt is true because there is no alternative. Dismissing the exponential growth and required time commitment won't make it go away, if anything it amplifies the problem and increases the number of discussion that need to happen in the end. If you have no consensus then the stance will just be taken for you by whoever screams the loudest, in modern times that is social media and advertising.
- LatteLazy 6y agoSo you accept its impossible to do mathematically, But insist we still need to do it because we have no alternative? Doesn't this mean that no community can ever actually function beyond very small sizes? They will just get stuck answering infinite moral quandries?