Live data from Hacker News

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

medium.com

21–30 of 227 posts

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

#21

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.

It's Taleb.

He has a compulsion to ramble in order to display his erudition.

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

#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 using the minority rule. Yes, an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy. Actually, as we saw, it will eventually destroy our world.

So, we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities. It is not permissible to use “American values” or “Western principles” in treating intolerant Salafism (which denies other peoples’ right to have their own religion). The West is currently in the process of committing suicide.

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

#23

"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.

[deleted]

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

#24

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'm glad I'm not the only one that thought so.

> How Europe will eat Halal — Why you don’t have to smoke in the smoking section — Your food choices on the fall of the Saudi king –How to prevent a friend from working too hard –Omar Sharif ‘s conversion — How to make a market collapse

Each of these would make a great article, but mixing in all these stories and discussions together made this borderline incoherent.

I work as an editor for an online technical publication. If an author ever forwarded a draft like this, I'd have either told them to split it into different articles or cut it down to a fraction of the size.

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

#25
post #2

Maybe in the western cultures, but I've been hearing variations of the "nail that sticks out gets hammered down" from my korean family for a long time.

His examples are mainly western but his theory applies everywhere. It's important to understand conditions when 'minority rule' applies. It's only applicable to situations when minority choice is preferable/acceptable to majority if given as the only choice. But minority choice that is not acceptable to majority will quickly get eliminated as you have heard in your case.

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

#26

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 tolerance loses all value.

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

#27

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.

It's not an "article". It's a book chapter.

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

#28
post #27

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. 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.

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

#29

"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.

Even if those religious rules mean the animal has to be treated more humanely than the 'secular' systems of approval?

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

#30
post #21

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.

It's Taleb. He has a compulsion to ramble in order to display his erudition.

Your presumption of the causality is unsubstantiated. It may be correct, but I don’t think you claim more than correlation (unless somewhere he has admitted as such, if which case I’m clearly wrong)

You get style points for humor though. :)

Post reply on HN