If there already exists "a binary" then that says there are 2 states. "Non-binary" only means there are not-two-states. This could be unary (there is one kind of thing), trinary (there are now 3 things, the old 2 and new, secret 3rd thing), or really any n-ary set of n distinctly numbered things, so long as there aren't only exactly 2 of them.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 41 points 5 months ago (2 children)

“Non-binary” only means there are not-two-states.

The state of having two states and the state of not-having-two-states is itself a two-state solution.

Unfortunately, once you rule out non-binary as a third state, you collapse back into the original binary state. Thus, non-binary exists as a quantum superposition between states, as we fluctuate between whether or not being non-binary is politically correct.

[–] Zachariah 22 points 5 months ago (3 children)

But can a two-state solution really work?

[–] Cryophilia 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Going to the UN to propose my Quantum Superposition Solution to Violence in the Middle East.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone will agree to dropping a massive Schrodinger box over the whole region

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

We put a large box over the middle east and left a vial of radioactive material in there.

Now either Israel ignored it and freaked out about the box like everyone else or they immediately used it to make bombs and eradicate their neighbors out of view.

Schrodinger's Palestine.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

Touché! Maybe we need a UN state shoved in beside the west bank to help keep an eye on things?

[–] macrocarpa 4 points 5 months ago

Yes and no.

[–] Klear 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

But nobody is in the state of having two states, though. People range from being in one state to "it's complicated", but how would you be in exactly two states?

[–] Pirasp 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You wouldn't, at least not while being observed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So turn off the lights and anything can happen?

[–] Pirasp 3 points 5 months ago

No, turn the light off and everything happens

[–] CodexArcanum 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I want to upvote the OP for presenting an interesting discussion but downvote them for being wrong. This presents a case for a non-binary voting option.

A singular like button would still only express one portion of my sentiment. A third option could be many things, none are sufficient: a none or 0 or neutral option is effectively not voting, a sideways arrow or maybe state, or mixed state would express indecision or indeterminism rather than mixed feelings.

Therefore, I propose that a second positive-negative axis is required. The addition of these "sideways" arrows allow expressing 2 kinds of sentiment: towards the post content, and towards the poster themselves. I will not specify whether left or right is positive nor will i clarify which axis (x or y) corresponds to which kind of sentiment. I'm sure this undefined behavior will cause no problems.

Here is your composite vote in the new system: ↖️

[–] realitista 7 points 5 months ago

The choice between a traditional up-down vote and a new non-up-down vote must have been a tough one.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I'm considering identifying as unary now. God only made one gender and "male and female" are mental illnesses caused by the original sin 😔

[–] CodexArcanum 3 points 5 months ago

One world, one gender, one love 💗

[–] droans 2 points 5 months ago

God cloned Adam to make Eve, thus we all are the same gender. Wake up sheeple!