[jerf]

I interpret Arrow's theorem as a statement that there is no universally-agreeable definition of "fair". You can create local definitions of "fair", you can get people to agree to operate with them, but somebody else can always propose a different, sensible definition of "fair", and that definition may produce a different outcome. It also means that it's reasonable to debate the effects of different definition of "fair".

I'd say the entire point is precisely that these constraints, quite surprisingly, are too tight. You must loosen them. You have no choice.

It doesn't mean it's the end of all hope, it just means that it may not be quite as easy to "turn a crank" and get universal answers as we'd like.

I think a lot of people miss that Arrow's theorem is less a political statement than a mathematical proof, and end up bringing a lot of baggage to it that is not justified. It is what it is; it isn't morally "right" or "wrong", it isn't that it "misses something" or unfairly focuses on something else, it's just "true". What you do with it is up to you, but you won't change its truth or falseness value by arguing with it any more than you can any other proof.

[wfo]

There are a few odd mathematical theorems which almost just seem to draw cranks like moths to a flame: I don't think I've ever seen a reference to Godel's incompleteness theorem outside of a mathematics textbook which isn't eye-rollingly cringeworthy. Similarly with this one; we have very technical theorems that take years of study to fully understand, and they almost touch on other fields or have some kind of "wow factor" which makes them irresistible to pop lit writers like Gladwell, Hofstadter, etc.