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

41–50 of 227 posts

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

#41

Post by tptacek »

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.

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

#42

Post by thriftwy »

grzm wrote: post #36
MR4D wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you got downvotes, but this is exactly where such situations can lead (not always, but definitely happened in the past).

> "Not sure why you got downvotes" I suspect because they went straight to an extreme position: not all examples of such behavior are genocide, and leading with that strongly tends to derail conversation. Yes, genocide may be a result of that, but so can a lot of other undesirable behaviors that stop far short of it. If you have a substantive, supporting comment, as you do, please do add it, but leave off the "Not su…

Not all examples are genocide, but situation tends to boil up to it quickly.

When the minority doesn't like you and you don't like said minority, what would you do? Modern law doesn't have anything that would decrease friction between two groups. I would say that maybe zoning laws do more for that than any other laws.

People tend to underestimate how close they are to genocide. "They are just very bad people", they think when they hear of it, "we are just angels compared to them, and we're incapable of genocide". Bad news that: they aren't that bad, you aren't that good, take your shining armour off, and yes you're never very far.

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

#43

Post by stale2002 »

adjkant wrote: post #26
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…

> “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 tole…

Ehh, I have found that people who argue in favor of this idea are generally the MOST intolerant of the bunch, and just want a righteous excuse to engage in their intolerance.

People who are tolerant generally don't go looking around for excuses to be horrible to other people.

An apt quote comes to mind: "The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"

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

#44

Post by raverbashing »

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…

While Popper's description of it is popular, it seems Godel realized this as well (as per the article) - while this was after Popper's (1945) I'm not sure Gödel knew about it

According to Wikipedia: "On December 5, 1947, Einstein and Morgenstern accompanied Gödel to his U.S. citizenship exam, where they acted as witnesses. Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution that could allow the U.S. to become a dictatorship"

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

#45

Post by plainOldText »

FPGAhacker wrote: post #31
plainOldText wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally disagree. I found it quite well structured and not that long for what it aimed to convey. I actually believe this long format helped cement the main points in reader's mind.

Not this reader, if only because I lost interest halfway.

I don’t blame you if you did, but often times we discover good gems when we push our boundaries a little further.

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

#46

Post by gambiting »

dionian wrote: post #29
gambiting wrote: post #5

"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?

Absolutely. It's purely about the involvement of religion that puts me off. If there was a "Catholic church approved cheese" I'd refuse to buy that too.

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

#47

Post by grzm »

thriftwy wrote: post #42
grzm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Not sure why you got downvotes" I suspect because they went straight to an extreme position: not all examples of such behavior are genocide, and leading with that strongly tends to derail conversation. Yes, genocide may be a result of that, but so can a lot of other undesirable behaviors that stop far short of it. If you have a substantive, supporting comment, as you do, please do add it, but leave off the "Not su…

Not all examples are genocide, but situation tends to boil up to it quickly. When the minority doesn't like you and you don't like said minority, what would you do? Modern law doesn't have anything that would decrease friction between two groups. I would say that maybe zoning laws do more for that than any other laws. People tend to underestimate how close they are to genocide. "They are just very bad people", they t…

And one of the reasons they boil up quickly is that people stop engaging in nuanced debate and engaging each other, instead resorting to cheap rhetoric that triggers baser emotions. You've got good stuff here. I encourage you to lead with this rather than the other.

Edit to add: FWIW, that's one of the reasons I take the time to respond to questions like "don't know why...", beyond just pointing out that it's against the guidelines. It takes a little bit of extra effort to take some time to imagine why a reasonable person may have done so and it's important that we do so. And even if I'm wrong (I can't read minds), I've exercised that same behavior I'm trying to encourage.

We have to encourage people to maintain good faith arguments with each other. Discussions on HN are a great example of this: so many ask "why can't we talk about X" and so many of times when a discussion starts about X it devolves when people stop discussing in good faith. The only way we can have those discussions is to remember that other reasonable people may disagree with you. Applying a little effort to thinking about why that may be, and (asking for confirmation if needed) engenders better discourse.

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

#48

Post by adjkant »

stale2002 wrote: post #43
adjkant wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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 tole…

Ehh, I have found that people who argue in favor of this idea are generally the MOST intolerant of the bunch, and just want a righteous excuse to engage in their intolerance. People who are tolerant generally don't go looking around for excuses to be horrible to other people. An apt quote comes to mind: "The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment…

Not tolerating intolerance is not a license to be horrible to other people. I suspect this is a bad application of the philosophical idea, as with just about every other idea once it hits practical use. The challenge is synthesizing the idea into something consistent with the original idea yet simple enough to be effective in practice.

My guess is that many people in favor aren't actually consistent themselves.

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

#49

Post by tptacek »

plainOldText wrote: post #45
FPGAhacker wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not this reader, if only because I lost interest halfway.

I don’t blame you if you did, but often times we discover good gems when we push our boundaries a little further.

That might be the case, but it is surely not a virtue of expository or persuasive writing. Generally we want people to make the point plain.

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

#50

Post by adjkant »

whatshisface wrote: post #35
adjkant wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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 tole…

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 reminder that many who likely support this view need, you should be intolerant of intolerance, not people who hold intolerant beliefs or practice intolerance.

Post reply on HN