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

91–100 of 227 posts

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

#91

Post by intopieces »

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…

Besides having the word tolerance in both, I don’t see how this comment relates to the article.

In Taleb’s article, he describes how the market accommodates the minority intolerance to the extent that is most economical — that is, where the “majority” doesn’t care either way. In this way, the ability of the tolerant to be tolerant is not being seized or destroyed, because the tolerant are not actually “tolerating” anything, since that word implies a level of discomfort that the customers are not experiencing.

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

#92

Post by thriftwy »

pjc50 wrote: post #62
thriftwy wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Modern law doesn't have anything that would decrease friction between two groups This is where human rights law and anti-hate speech law comes from. Verbal exchanges can make a situation tense, but cutting down the opportunities for escalation allows a peace to be built. It's also necessary to keep weapons out of politics. Anyone forming a political militia is one incident away from being a terrorist group or death…

> This is where human rights law and anti-hate speech law comes from.

How many genocides did the latter ever prevent? If anything, they'll make genocides much more sudden. You can bully the majority into submission but it's going to backfire.

Regarding human rights, I just don't see them working in the century of XXI.

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

#93

Post by pjc50 »

mamon wrote: post #89
pjc50 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Modern law doesn't have anything that would decrease friction between two groups This is where human rights law and anti-hate speech law comes from. Verbal exchanges can make a situation tense, but cutting down the opportunities for escalation allows a peace to be built. It's also necessary to keep weapons out of politics. Anyone forming a political militia is one incident away from being a terrorist group or death…

Anti-hate speech laws can lead to similar effect: first you ban most obvious things, like death threats or racism. Then someone comes up with the idea of banning any criticism of abortion, because it might hurt feelings of women who had it. Then you ban Christmas trees in public schools, because it might hurt feelings of Muslims - the anti-hate laws become more and more prohibitive. Basically, it's a variation of the…

> Then someone comes up with the idea of banning any criticism of abortion, because it might hurt feelings of women who had it. Then you ban Christmas trees in public schools, because it might hurt feelings of Muslims

None of those has actually happened, nor is likely to actually make it through any functioning legal system.

(If you're going hunting for examples of the Christmas tree ban, check your news sources very carefully)

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

#94

Post by tyingq »

TomMarius wrote: post #73
jamiepenney wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back then, wouldn't it have been? I think they used ammonia as a coolant initially.

Freon, from Wikipedia: > They are stable, nonflammable, moderately toxic gases or liquids which have typically been used as refrigerants and as aerosol propellants. Edit: why am I getting downvoted for this...?

“back then”

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

#95

Post by tptacek »

intopieces wrote: post #91
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…

Besides having the word tolerance in both, I don’t see how this comment relates to the article. In Taleb’s article, he describes how the market accommodates the minority intolerance to the extent that is most economical — that is, where the “majority” doesn’t care either way. In this way, the ability of the tolerant to be tolerant is not being seized or destroyed, because the tolerant are not actually “tolerating” an…

Are you sure that's what he's saying? It's a Taleb piece so I can't blame anyone for not knowing just what the fuck it is he's on about this time, but he concludes a section with the sentence "The West is currently in the process of committing suicide."

I think Taleb wants it both ways, or every possible way, in this discursive essay. If you find yourself nodding along to the idea that we can get along just fine with people who have restrictive preferences so long as those preferences are compatible with our own, Taleb is happy to have you land there. But if you go into a piece that discussed Islam hoping to find the bit about how our tolerance of religion is destroying Western Civ, he's got you covered too.

I want to say that I find it ironic that he zeroes in on Halal food when, as a sort of general rule, Kosher food tends to be Halal and not the other way around. But I don't know if it's ironic, because Taleb is so adept at armoring his essays against any kind of critical analysis or, for that matter, basic comprehension. Maybe the fact that Muslims are more "tolerant" of different butchering practices than Jewish people but still it's the Muslims that threaten democracy is part of his whole point. 23 skidoo!

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

#96

Post by dgacmu »

TomMarius wrote: post #73
jamiepenney wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back then, wouldn't it have been? I think they used ammonia as a coolant initially.

Freon, from Wikipedia: > They are stable, nonflammable, moderately toxic gases or liquids which have typically been used as refrigerants and as aerosol propellants. Edit: why am I getting downvoted for this...?

I'm not sure. I think you're right, from this timeline: http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=3854

Freon was invented in 1928, and started mass production a few years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freon

By 1935, 8 million refrigerators had been sold using Freon as their refrigerant: https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-freon-4072212

His refrigerator comment was some time before 1953: https://plus.maths.org/content/goumldel-and-limits-logic though another source places it around Einstein's death in 1955:[1]

... ahhh, the wiki hole is deep today. :)

[Edited to fix: date of refrigerator comment upper bounded by 1953, not in 1953]. So it's possible he formed the opinion pre-freon, but it seems more likely that it was during the Freon era.

[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=iWy1AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA332&lpg=...

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

#97

Post by conanbatt »

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…

> 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 intolerance to violent intolerance, not to any intolerance.

That is my interpretation at least, and I find it very disingenuous to omit that part.

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

#98

Post by swanson »

abecedarius wrote: post #87
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.

Does anyone have a favorite reader's-digest-condensed-version of Taleb's books?

I find these to be the best "single post summaries". His books are very challenging to read, but I've always found them rewarding once I've finished/absorbed the material. No pain, no gain I suppose!

Antifragile: https://medium.com/thinking-is-hard/live-like-a-hydra-c02337...

Fooled by Randomness: https://www.fs.blog/2015/02/fooled-by-randomness/

The Bed of Procrustes: https://twitter.com/nntaleb

(I've not read Black Swan so cannot offer any recommendations)

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

#99

Post by madaxe_again »

meow1032 wrote: post #85
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.

I can't help but feel that if Taleb put a little more effort into fleshing out his arguments I'd enjoy his writing a lot more. In most of what I've read from him, it always feels like he's more concerned with trying to make the reader feel smug about understanding his writing than actually trying to communicate anything meaningful. In this article, he has an aside where he complains that Agricultural Companies are ru…

You took the words from my mouth. While there is a valid and logical point here, his own asides and proselytising style provide avenues to undermine his argument.

For instance, in many Muslim majority or even major minority countries, you do not have a universally halal food industry - most supermarkets are divided into "stuff (probably halal)" halal, and haram.

If he halved the time and volume he puts into making himself/his readers feel clever, he'd be far more convincing.

I know this because it's something I feel into for years, and still do on my first draft of much that I write.

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

#100

Post by aparks517 »

pjc50 wrote: post #53
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…

> The West is currently in the process of committing suicide. This one of those lines that, when it appears in an article, you know there's an error somewhere in the preceding thousand lines of argument, as surely as if it were a proof that 1 == 0. > an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy I'm more worried about intolerant minorities of privileged people who are currently in power destroying democrac…

The argument might be junk, but if you reject it solely because it points toward a conclusion that contradicts your pre-existing biases... I think you've left the path of wisdom.
Post reply on HN