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

211–220 of 227 posts

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

#211

Post by danieltillett »

danieltillett wrote: post #142
chillwaves wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While running for Congress, Indiana governor Mike Pence called for state funding for "institutions" working to enable people to "change their sexual behavior." https://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-t...

Not that I think "gay conversion" is effective (maybe at the margins), but as society we do seem to beleive that others sexual orientations can be changed via incarceration.

I am replying to myself since I am fascinated by the other three responses. None of them are responding to what I actually wrote and all of them are responding to what they think I wrote. All of them are wrong in guessing what I think I wrote.

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

#212

Post by KirinDave »

conanbatt wrote: post #201
KirinDave wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the song go? "A salvageable hypocrisy is better than brutal truth?"

I dont think its hipocrisy at all, i think its the same reasoning the most intolerant people could use to justify whatever they do.

Well this is that paradoxical requirement about intolerance of intolerance being a requirement for a tolerant society.

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

#213

Post by Digory »

KirinDave wrote: post #208
Digory wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RFRAs don't allow first responders to refuse to do their jobs -- the life of another is a compelling state interest, and there's no narrower way to accommodate that interest than to require first responders to respond. Merely claiming a religious burden is only one element of the test. I've never heard of any religious emergency service personnel even suggesting they have a religious objection to 'interacting' with L…

I mean, RFRAs have enabled other prior absurd outcomes, especially in health care. I've read a lot of interpretations of this law that suggest that this would have to be tested in court. There is this curious not of the "obligation" of a first responder, but as we are seeing in Florida it's not clear any such obligation exists or can be realistically enforced.

Police don't have to take a bullet for anyone, but the EMT that refuses to help LGBT people on the scene of an accident will be sued into oblivion. RFRAs don't change any aspect of either situation, and we've had 20 years of federal RFRA caselaw that says it's pretty settled.

Despite what you may have read from activists, there exists no sizable group of Americans who want to use their religion, or would allow others to use their religion, to deprive LGBT people police, fire, or medical treatment in an emergency. No more, I'd venture, than there are LGBT people who would do so to religious people.

There are reasons to criticize religious beliefs or second guess RFRA expansion, but this shows the problem of encouraging a policy of intolerance toward perceived intolerance. It's often prejudice based on fearmongering, even (or especially) in the age of the internet.

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

#214

Post by WaxProlix »

conanbatt wrote: post #196
humanrebar wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Identity politics is all the rage now, but i do believe the libertarians found the way out of this paradox. Its the use of force and coercion that draws a clear line on what kind of intolerance is intolerable. The rest is just distasteful.

A clear but ultimately arbitrary line, and to boot one where you've sort of shoehorned all the hard work into the definition of 'coercion' (or 'violence' depending on your brand of libertarianism).

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

#215

Post by jacquesm »

jonahx wrote: post #173
tptacek wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wow. That's actually an incredible example of how to bullshit your way into fame. Do you think he believes his own nonsense?

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

#216

Post by jacquesm »

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.

The point is: there is no point. It's a load of nonsense with a sentence or two in there that in isolation might make a point drowning in a sea of contradictions and unrelated statements.

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

#217

Post by KirinDave »

Digory wrote: post #213
KirinDave wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, RFRAs have enabled other prior absurd outcomes, especially in health care. I've read a lot of interpretations of this law that suggest that this would have to be tested in court. There is this curious not of the "obligation" of a first responder, but as we are seeing in Florida it's not clear any such obligation exists or can be realistically enforced.

Police don't have to take a bullet for anyone, but the EMT that refuses to help LGBT people on the scene of an accident will be sued into oblivion. RFRAs don't change any aspect of either situation, and we've had 20 years of federal RFRA caselaw that says it's pretty settled. Despite what you may have read from activists, there exists no sizable group of Americans who want to use their religion, or would allow others…

You need to reexamine this specific rfra. It is different from other examples and was widely criticized for that difference.

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

#218

Post by conanbatt »

rectang wrote: post #113
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…

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

What do you call disenfranchisement?

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

#219

Post by conanbatt »

WaxProlix wrote: post #214
conanbatt wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Identity politics is all the rage now, but i do believe the libertarians found the way out of this paradox. Its the use of force and coercion that draws a clear line on what kind of intolerance is intolerable. The rest is just distasteful.

A clear but ultimately arbitrary line, and to boot one where you've sort of shoehorned all the hard work into the definition of 'coercion' (or 'violence' depending on your brand of libertarianism).

Its a smaller problem for sure.

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

#220

Post by bparsons »

Reasonable accommodation often comes down to a cost argument. In almost all the examples the author cites, it costs next to nothing to accommodate these small groups of people.

It is a corporation or a society deciding that it is willing to make a minuscule procedural or behavioral adjustment in order to accommodate a group of people. For those who don't have a peanut allergy or religious dietary restrictions, the difference is barely perceptible.

If you are a government or a corporation that services tens or hundreds of millions of people. You don't make policies or products just for a plurality or majority of individuals-- you try to them compatible for as many people as possible.

This isn't "tyranny of the minority", it is just good design.

Post reply on HN