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

171–180 of 227 posts

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

#171

Post by rectang »

humanrebar wrote: post #163
makomk wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, I usually see Karl Poppler's Paradox of Tolerance used to justify exactly what he's warning against.

That's actually the logical conclusion of "no tolerance for intolerance". Actual intolerance will re-emerge while using that as a slogan. I honestly don't see any other conclusion while divisive identity politics is the culture. Every election and debate is just subtext for making sure your people are in power to protect your people.

It's a paradox. The point is that tolerance cannot be limitless. That doesn't mean that intolerance won't prevail, it just means that those who strive for tolerance need not achieve perfection.

There will forever be a balance to be struck, and it's natural to have disagreements about it.

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

#172

Post by humanrebar »

psyc wrote: post #103
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…

It isn't necessary or desirable to prohibit the ban-speech party from speaking. This is my primary objection to political philosophies that favor minmaxing statistics with policy, over principles. I object in the extreme to the idea that if A->B->C->D->E->F->G->Hitler, then society has a duty to prohibit A at the expense of liberal principles. Start with banning G, if you absolutely must. Speech doesn't directly caus…

> Speech doesn't directly cause victory. It only seems that way if you're very afraid of something.

People are afraid of democracy. They suspect that people on the whole are easy enough to manipulate that catastrophe is possible.

They can't say that without seeming, well, undemocratic. So they try to ban dangerous speech instead.

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

#173

Post by jonahx »

tptacek wrote: post #41
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.

This is so true that me and 'jacquesm actually agree on it. I think there's an Emperor's New Clothes thing happening with Taleb. Apparently, his technical writing is important and impactful. But his popular writing is prolix, repetitive, smug, and sometimes ill-reasoned.

This clip, one of the most impressive word salads you'll hear from a public intellectual, will confirm your impression beyond all doubt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H11t5zBd3fU&t=25s

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

#174

Post by andybak »

CrystalLangUser wrote: post #13
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.

One thing that comes to mind is when muslims raised concerns about Switzerland's flag.[0] This is a different sort of case than described in the article, but pushback here is inevitable. [0]: https://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/schweiz/weg-mit-dem-kreuz-sec...

I'd like to know more about that. It seems to blundering terrible as a tactic that it almost makes me think it's a false flag operation.

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

#175

Post by syrrim »

KirinDave wrote: post #126
conanbatt wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Pretty much every intolerance worth opposing harnesses very violent elements in it's base while maintaining a veneer of civility. Look at religious motivated systemic violence against LGBT people in the US. Our current executive has waved a rainbow flag a time or two, but our vice president has personally funded things that look like camps and penned legislation that let's police ignore and LGBT person being beaten o…

Perhaps all intolerant groups harness violence, but it is clearly not a required element. They could easily substitute it with social stigmatization, and achieve a similar effect. Many religious people today will disown a son or daughter for coming out as gay. Were there no legislation stopping this, I imagine the same people would refuse to allow gay people into their businesses. If we were able to guarantee that all violence would be punished, the intolerant groups would quickly adapt while remaining intolerant.

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

#176

Post by humanrebar »

adjkant wrote: post #50
whatshisface wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 muc…

Agreed. I think the solution is to really pluck at those grey areas, as of course it's easy to work in black and white. To generalize, I think the general best course is to first understand why the intolerance exists, its validity, and then address it from there in ways still consistent with tolerance. Easier said than done of course, but I'm not intending to write a philosophical dissertation here fully. As a remind…

> ...not people who hold intolerant beliefs or practice intolerance.

The problem is that we've done a splendid job blurring the lines between identities, beliefs, speech, and behavior. We have no ground rules for how to be intolerant of some things without seeming intolerant of the people that care deeply about those things.

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

#177

Post by humanrebar »

pjc50 wrote: post #79
skybrian wrote: post #69

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, chang…

> we find that the market provides a lot of variety despite the cost You can have anything you like so long as it's manufactured by Coke.

You can order anything you want online these days. We're in golden age for microbrews. I see a dozen varieties of hipster ginger beverages in the Whole Foods refrigerator.

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

#178

Post by humanrebar »

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.

Someone said it's surprising that all three branches of the U.S. government are actively trying to shirk their duties. The President blames Congress for inaction. Congress makes vague and overly complicated bills that mostly enables the executive branch to do actual rulemaking. The Supreme Court, as a rule, tries to be as narrow and impactless as possible.

The founders assumed each branch would compete for power. They didn't expect them to actively push responsibility on to other people. It seems like that's why we have a healthy and growing bureaucratic state these days.

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

#179

Post by humanrebar »

rectang wrote: post #120
dragonwriter wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When the time comes, they'll just ignore the Constitution or at least relieve it of its meaning.

The path to a healthy government has to include rule of law. I think the slippery slope we are on is very dangerous. When people decide ignoring the Constitution is easier and just as legitimate as amending it, it is the beginning of the end. I think we already passed that point and I'm not sure how we can recover.

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

#180

Post by lkrubner »

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.

As Voltaire said: "The secret to being a bore is to tell everything."
Post reply on HN