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

61–70 of 227 posts

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

#61

Post by pessimizer »

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).

I assume the downvotes are because it describes genocides as cases when the victims were too pushy and the majority were forced to defend themselves, something which you seem to agree with. It was a very common rationalization in at least one major genocide: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pushy+jew&t=lm&ia=web

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

#62

Post by pjc50 »

thriftwy wrote: post #42
grzm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 su…

Not all examples are genocide, but situation tends to boil up to it quickly. When the minority doesn't like you and you don't like said minority, what would you do? Modern law doesn't have anything that would decrease friction between two groups. I would say that maybe zoning laws do more for that than any other laws. People tend to underestimate how close they are to genocide. "They are just very bad people", they t…

> Modern law doesn't have anything that would decrease friction between two groups

This is where human rights law and anti-hate speech law comes from. Verbal exchanges can make a situation tense, but cutting down the opportunities for escalation allows a peace to be built.

It's also necessary to keep weapons out of politics. Anyone forming a political militia is one incident away from being a terrorist group or death squad. One of the key elements of peace in Northern Ireland was the disarming of the Republican side - and the corresponding de-militarisation of the police.

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

#63

Post by rothrock »

raverbashing wrote: post #44
tchalla wrote: post #39

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 o…

While Popper's description of it is popular, it seems Godel realized this as well (as per the article) - while this was after Popper's (1945) I'm not sure Gödel knew about it According to Wikipedia: "On December 5, 1947, Einstein and Morgenstern accompanied Gödel to his U.S. citizenship exam, where they acted as witnesses. Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution tha…

Gödel also believed his refrigerator was emitting poison gas.

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

#64

Post by jamiepenney »

rothrock wrote: post #63
raverbashing wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Popper's description of it is popular, it seems Godel realized this as well (as per the article) - while this was after Popper's (1945) I'm not sure Gödel knew about it According to Wikipedia: "On December 5, 1947, Einstein and Morgenstern accompanied Gödel to his U.S. citizenship exam, where they acted as witnesses. Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution tha…

Gödel also believed his refrigerator was emitting poison gas.

Back then, wouldn't it have been? I think they used ammonia as a coolant initially.

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

#65

Post by grzm »

MR4D wrote: post #54
grzm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 su…

But it’s not inflammatory. The response was “yes it can” which I think is totally valid. In fact, I’d go one step further and say that maybe the problem is that we don’t spend enough time studying how situations lead to genocide, and therefore we kinda suck at preventing it. Just my two cents, but that was my rationale for supporting the paren’t statement.

It sounds like we're largely agreeing, and that larger conversation is the one we should be having.

The only quibble I have (and likely those that down voted share it), is that the full comment is "Yes, it can, and then it is called 'genocide'." There's no nuance there. "can" does convey possibility, but that's removed in the second clause.

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

#66

Post by raverbashing »

rothrock wrote: post #63
raverbashing wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Popper's description of it is popular, it seems Godel realized this as well (as per the article) - while this was after Popper's (1945) I'm not sure Gödel knew about it According to Wikipedia: "On December 5, 1947, Einstein and Morgenstern accompanied Gödel to his U.S. citizenship exam, where they acted as witnesses. Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution tha…

Gödel also believed his refrigerator was emitting poison gas.

Yes, his mental health was complicated. Doesn't negate his theoretical contributions though.

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

#67

Post by catdograbbit »

I believe it. The most extraordinary evidence of this is the gay rights movement. They've adopted "Love Wins" as their slogan, but then refuse to even interact with people who may not support them (i.e: Mike Pence). Clearly, they don't believe their own propaganda.

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

#68

Post by jamesmp98 »

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.

> What an overlong and rambling article.

Welcome to Medium

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

#69

Post by skybrian »

The basic argument is interesting but has important preconditions: the majority needs to be tolerant (the change doesn't cost them much). In the case of kosher drinks, it's almost completely invisible.

When people actually have a preference (such as how a drink tastes) we find that the market provides a lot of variety despite the cost. Consider the shelves of your average convenience store.

Applied to religion, changes are far from costless and we often see persistent disputes. And anyone making large-scale predictions needs to account for how incredibly successful and persistent western culture and products are. This doesn't seem to be due to intolerance.

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

#70

Post by ComputerGuru »

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'.

Maybe. Maybe not. Everyone agrees the Rohingya genocide is “wrong” but no one is willing to lift a finger about it. Even the Pope himself felt he had to tread lightly regarding the matter on his recent visit to Burma/Myanmar.
Post reply on HN