Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority (2016)

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 227 posts

Re: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority (2016)

#31

Post by FPGAhacker »

plainOldText wrote: post #15
jacquesm wrote: post #11

What an overlong and rambling article. Over the years I've found the big trick in writing is to know what to leave out. This is hard to get right but TFA could really do with some editing, it would probably be a stronger article at 1/4 the size that it is.

I personally disagree. I found it quite well structured and not that long for what it aimed to convey. I actually believe this long format helped cement the main points in reader's mind.

Not this reader, if only because I lost interest halfway.

Re: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority (2016)

#32

Post by MR4D »

thriftwy wrote: post #14
nugget wrote: post #7

Can a small minority push too aggressively and embolden a silent majority (or substantially larger plurality) to unify against them and feel justified in resistance? This feels like one of the major themes of the current political climate in the US and parts of EU.

Yes, it can, and then it is called 'genocide'.

Not sure why you got downvotes, but this is exactly where such situations can lead (not always, but definitely happened in the past).

Re: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority (2016)

#33

Post by coldtea »

khawkins wrote: post #20

Very enlightening, but I think the points about non-GMO/organic food are a bad example. The non-GMO/organic movement is a rejection of technologies which improve yields. Distribution costs might have lowered, but supply forces will almost always keep these foods substantially higher in price because yields are lower.

Are yields really low, or is that just an excuse huge conglomerates like Monsanto that wants to "DRM" seeds use, when they don't care about yields at all?

And are they giving a subpar product + patents/copyrights + DRM, and selling it with the same high prices as to make yields irrelevant (when upselling 10x and 100x what you buy produce for, the original yield is an insignificant factor to the price).

Re: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority (2016)

#34

Post by coldtea »

gambiting wrote: post #5

"A Kosher (or halal) eater will never eat nonkosher (or nonhalal) food , but a nonkosher eater isn’t banned from eating kosher." I absolutely never buy halal meat and whenever possible try to avoid kosher certified foods. I do try to vote with my wallet and keep religion out of my food as much as physically possible.

Which would have some impact if this was some general belief/rule -- but most non-religious/lightly religious people don't care about that at all, whereas most religious people do care and insist.

Which makes this a personal whim more than something that has any effect to counter the trend.

Re: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority (2016)

#35

Post by whatshisface »

adjkant wrote: post #26
plainOldText wrote: post #22

An interesting bit: Clearly can democracy –by definition the majority — tolerate enemies? The question is as follows: “ Would you agree to deny the freedom of speech to every political party that has in its charter the banning the freedom of speech?” Let’s go one step further, “Should a society that has elected to be tolerant be intolerant about intolerance?” To which he later concludes: We can answer these points us…

> “Should a society that has elected to be tolerant be intolerant about intolerance?” This is something philosophy has actually done well to detail. It's the paradox of tolerance, and I think the answer absolutely has to be yes. For those looking for easy surface level gotcha's, that seems like a problem. Dig deeper, and it's logically consistent with the belief of tolerance, for if one allows intolerance, their tole…

The problem that opens up is the definition of intolerance. Are direct claims against the rights of others to believe something intolerant? Yes, they probably are. What about speaking against groups of people (in a broad sense, calling out some perceived problem with their behavior)? Well, sometimes that's intolerant, sometimes something needs to be said (maybe that group is the Inner Party and they're taking too much). What about speech that doesn't directly disparage anybody, but that makes certain people feel incredibly uncomfortable and unwelcome? Well, that can be exclusionary, but everything makes someone uncomfortable. (some Christians might not want you bringing evolution in to schools (which they perceive as just another competing ideology), and some trans people might not enjoy being picked apart in critical gender discussions everywhere they go. The reader might agree with one of those two but probably not both.)

So, as you can see, it's really a microcosm of the idea that "we should support good and ban evil."

Re: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority (2016)

#36

Post by grzm »

MR4D wrote: post #32
thriftwy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it can, and then it is called 'genocide'.

Not sure why you got downvotes, but this is exactly where such situations can lead (not always, but definitely happened in the past).

> "Not sure why you got downvotes"

I suspect because they went straight to an extreme position: not all examples of such behavior are genocide, and leading with that strongly tends to derail conversation. Yes, genocide may be a result of that, but so can a lot of other undesirable behaviors that stop far short of it.

If you have a substantive, supporting comment, as you do, please do add it, but leave off the "Not sure why you got downvotes". It doesn't add anything to the discussion and is against the guidelines.

Re: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority (2016)

#38

Post by golemiprague »

plainOldText wrote: post #22

An interesting bit: Clearly can democracy –by definition the majority — tolerate enemies? The question is as follows: “ Would you agree to deny the freedom of speech to every political party that has in its charter the banning the freedom of speech?” Let’s go one step further, “Should a society that has elected to be tolerant be intolerant about intolerance?” To which he later concludes: We can answer these points us…

I am not sure banning their freedom of speech will solve any problem. I am pretty sure not letting them into christian countries will be much more useful policy and will not even go against the principles of western countries since they are not part of the country to start with and there is no obligation to let them in.

Re: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority (2016)

#39

Post by tchalla »

Paradox of Tolerance : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

> The paradox of tolerance was described by Karl Popper in 1945. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

Re: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority (2016)

#40

Post by coldtea »

jacquesm wrote: post #28
coldtea wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What an overlong and rambling article. It's not an "article". It's a book chapter.

What goes for articles goes for book chapters. Unless of course you get paid by the word you write. Good writing packs punch.

Well, some of us like our non-fiction to be as long as it takes. We don't just go for the Cliff Notes.

And there are other expectations from a short blog read than from a book.

Post reply on HN