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

111–120 of 227 posts

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

#111

Post by coldtea »

stale2002 wrote: post #51
coldtea wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I mean, if they weren't low then why would farms pay money for the more expensive seeds? Farms aren't mom and pop shops anymore. Even the small ones are major, multi-million dollar businesses. This is big company VS big company. And if those mult-million dollar businesses believe that they can get better crops by paying Monsanto, well I think I'll trust their expert opinion on it. If these products are so sub-par, wh…

>I mean, if they weren't low then why would farms pay money for the more expensive seeds?

Because they have more assurance of their crop not falling prey to some disease. But even a 100% increase chance of a good yield is nothing (while it means the world to farmers) if the final price is many times what they sell for.

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

#112

Post by coldtea »

pessimizer wrote: post #56
coldtea wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Well, some of us like our non-fiction to be as long as it takes. As long as what takes?

Getting the whole of the author's point across, and not just a TL;DR summary of it.

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

#113

Post by rectang »

conanbatt wrote: post #97
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…

> But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. He is meaning that there should be intolera…

Being intolerant to violent intolerance is not enough. Tolerating minority disenfranchisement also leads to the death of tolerance.

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

#114

Post by anigbrowl »

Y_Y wrote: post #101
rothrock wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gödel also believed his refrigerator was emitting poison gas.

That's a bit dismissive. Goedel was correct about making the US a dictatorship. The fact that the amending clause allows unlimited amendment (particularly of the amending clause itself) means a series of malicious amendments could irrevocably change the constitution to that of a dictatorship and forbid returning to a democracy. Now maybe people would just give up on the constitution at that point, but in terms of the…

I've always thought it was more likely over article 2 section 3, which allows the President to adjourn both houses of Congress indefinitely under certain circumstances. If one was expecting to be impeached, for example, a little procedural hiccup on the timetable of adjournment would be sufficient to suspend legislative business altogether.

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

#115

Post by IntronExon »

tptacek wrote: post #95
intopieces wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides having the word tolerance in both, I don’t see how this comment relates to the article. In Taleb’s article, he describes how the market accommodates the minority intolerance to the extent that is most economical — that is, where the “majority” doesn’t care either way. In this way, the ability of the tolerant to be tolerant is not being seized or destroyed, because the tolerant are not actually “tolerating” an…

Are you sure that's what he's saying? It's a Taleb piece so I can't blame anyone for not knowing just what the fuck it is he's on about this time, but he concludes a section with the sentence "The West is currently in the process of committing suicide." I think Taleb wants it both ways, or every possible way, in this discursive essay. If you find yourself nodding along to the idea that we can get along just fine with…

It’s almost Taoist... he says nothing and everything, satisfying everyone and no one... at great length. Economics is perfect for him.

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

#116

Post by vlunkr »

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.

The part about lemonade almost made me quit reading. Why did he describe it that way?

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

#117

Post by slimsag »

mc32 wrote: post #109
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…

Somewhat related is the phenomenon where if fir example you know you'll have vegetarians and meatatarians, you can get away with serving vegetarian food and for the most part everyone will eat. If on the other hand you serve an omnivorous meal the vegetarians will not eat.

That's a bit silly. Why would a meatatarian eat anything except meat? They would be an omnivore if they did.

What you're really saying is that either:

a. The meatatarians are actually omnivores, and just mislabeled. b. The meatatarians are _occasionally_ omnivores, out of preference.

Bending dietary preferences when there is social pressure ("they served me this food, being morally good to me personally means I should eat it" or "I'm on a diet, but everyone else is eating cake so I should too") is not all that surprising, especially if the reason you are excluding one type of food is because of _preference_.

But when you exclude a certain type of food out of health needs (allergic, lactose intolerance, etc) nobody will bat an eye. If a vegetarian refuses to eat meat for their own mental / moral health, I would argue it should be treated the same.

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

#118

Post by Barrin92 »

coldtea wrote: post #112
pessimizer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, some of us like our non-fiction to be as long as it takes. As long as what takes?

Getting the whole of the author's point across, and not just a TL;DR summary of it.

Which would have merit if it weren't for the fact that Nassim Taleb is constantly peddling very elementary stuff and selling it as a kind of underdog insight that no-one has ever heard before and that the establishment is allegedly hiding from us.

Yes, intolerance can crowd out tolerance, normal distributions can break down, tails matter and so forth. Every time I picked up one of his books I felt like I'm reading a really angry stats 101 book with nine out of ten paragraphs being rants about the academia combined with very questionable nutritional and medical advice

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

#120

Post by rectang »

dragonwriter wrote: post #80
rectang wrote: post #37

The flip side: An intolerant majority. There are good reasons to avoid leaving whether minorities get civil rights to the whim of the majority, and to instead enshrine such rights in a constitution.

Constitutions aren't magic spells, they still rely on people actively choosing to honor them.

Too true. And certainly the US constitution used to enshrine slavery.

But the more difficult it is to take away the rights of the minority (particularly the right to vote), the better.

Post reply on HN