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

221–227 of 227 posts

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

#221

Post by rectang »

conanbatt wrote: post #218
rectang wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What do you call disenfranchisement?

Denying people the right to vote.

This can take many forms. Virtually the entire citizenry can be denied the right to vote, as in autocracy. Poll taxes disenfranchise the poor. The combination of felony disenfranchisement and racial disparities in enforcement of criminal laws yields a situation where racial minorities are disenfranchised as a group.

Other shenanigans can limit people's choices, such as the restriction of candidates in Iran. Of course the first-past-the-post system used in the US also restricts choice in some ways... But "disenfranchisement", I'd say, specifically pertains to denying people the right to vote.

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

#222

Post by [deleted] »

danieltillett wrote: post #211
danieltillett wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#223

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#224

Post by conanbatt »

rectang wrote: post #221
conanbatt wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you call disenfranchisement?

Denying people the right to vote. This can take many forms. Virtually the entire citizenry can be denied the right to vote, as in autocracy. Poll taxes disenfranchise the poor. The combination of felony disenfranchisement and racial disparities in enforcement of criminal laws yields a situation where racial minorities are disenfranchised as a group. Other shenanigans can limit people's choices, such as the restrictio…

Are you talking about the application of force to prevent someone from voting? Because that is violence..

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

#225

Post by WaxProlix »

conanbatt wrote: post #219
WaxProlix wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it smaller? I don't think that's the case.

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

#226

Post by philtar »

KirinDave wrote: post #197
akkat wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's terrible! I can't seem to find a source of the vice president being connected to legislation allowing police to ignore LGBT people being beaten. Can you give me the link to one? Also, what do you mean by camps? Forced orientation changing?

Sure, it's the tortured story of Indiana's so-called RFRA act that Pence presided over. It includes several problematic sections. Section 9 opened the door for this interpretation of the build by pointing out that private contractors often work for the city and state, and specifically protecting the right to object to interacting with LGBT people if "[their] exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is…

You are grossly misinterpreting how this is applied in the real world. Wake me up when a first responder refuses to help someone because they are LGBTQ

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

#227

Post by shard972 »

goldideas wrote: post #207
shard972 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have talked to a few people recently who migrated from SA to perth Australia. Considered one of them was telling me stories about white farmers being killed over the last few years and him not feeling safe anymore in the country (hence why he moved to Australia). I'm not saying apartheid was perfect, just or a morale state. What I would say though is I think it's far too early to say post apartheid was a complete s…

Apartheid was not a success either though. And sure post-apartheid isn't pretty yet, but we don't/can't know what SA would look like today if there had never been apartheid. I don't think anything in South African history would point to segregation being a solution to any social, economic, or political problems.

On the other side of the coin I don't see complete integration as the solution either, unless you race mix the entire country for centuries there is going to be racial conflict it seems in SA.

When it comes to segregation, I don't see why it in itself is bad. Apartheid was a problem because you had a white ruling class oppressing blacks and the problem we are now seeing is the opposite, a black ruling class oppressing whites.

If we were able to split the state in two, couldn't we at least stem some of the racial conflicts? Much harder to opress groups that don't exist within the country.

Post reply on HN