• XeroxCool@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I think you’re falsely categorizing action as binary thinking and supporting OP’s thought. Say I want to help people with some extra money - I have $100 (in singles) to give and 5 people in need. I’m not locked into “giving or not giving” or stuck giving to 1 person and not giving to 4 people. I can give everyone $20 evenly. I can $10 to one and $90 to another. I can give $5, $15, $25, $25, and $30 to them based on apparent need. I can give $0. Dividing this up into 5 individual binary actions… Actually, 100 individual actions (each dollar), dishonestly represents the overall opportunity and outcome.

    And that’s just for one case where it’s a zero-sum game with my limited pot of $100. That’s a prime type of case where some majority groups would beleive anything not directly given to them is, effectively, taken from them - more binary thinking. That doesn’t account for status change, further income, and understand that social welfare budgets are insanely smaller than the gratuitous budgets of other departments.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      You just proved what I was saying though. The thought doesn’t have to be binary. You have a multitude of choices. But the moment you make an action, that is binary. You either do that specific action or not.

      • hornface@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        15 hours ago

        You sound like someone I know who insists that the probability of anything happening is always 50/50, because “either it happens or it doesn’t”.