15 ms·
The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority (2016)
- MollyR 9y agoMaybe 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.
- Xeoncross 9y agoWhich is an interesting point as I've wondered what final effects people from community/family oriented societies (like Shame/Honor cultures) will have on independent/self-centered western culture and vis-versa.
- grenoire 9y agoI don't think it's an old phenomenon for Western cultures either. Kafka's novels and stories, for example, are all about the outcasts being pushed away and ostracised from society.
- CrystalLangUser 9y agoThat sentiment comes from the Confucianism, Buddhism, and Neo-Confucianism which shaped Korea. I think that sits alongside with the points the article is making. Similar to the McDonalds in Milan example in the article, Korea has LotteMart everywhere, and people do sometimes eat there instead of a local joint. Koreans also study English just like other countries. The annual 수능 exam taken by students is considered to be extremely important for college applications. It has a section on English.
- ghusbands 9y agoThe kinds of minority mentioned in the article aren't the vocal kind (that might get hammered down). They are simply a selective pressure.
- jacquesm 9y agoDutch equivalents: 'High trees will catch the wind' and 'if you raise your head above the cutting line it will get chopped off'.
- 77pt77 9y agoYet Korea has quite a lot of religious diversity.
- ssdd 9y agoHis 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.
- whatusername 9y agoIn Australia we call that Tall Poppy syndrome.
- aidenn0 9y agoI remember reading an article somewhere discussing the difference between the US saying of "The squeaky wheel gets the grease," and the East-Asian (I think specifically focused on Japan in that article) saying of "The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."
- gambiting 9y ago"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.
- ghusbands 9y agoThe article mentions that, rambling as it is. Some people refuse to buy halal meat, for various reasons, and that prevents it taking over completely.
- raverbashing 9y agoYes, there are animal abuse issues with it Also some of it finances religious bodies, which I'm completely against. I refuse to finance religious extremism
- tachyoff 9y agoI have bad news: lots of foods are kosher.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dionian 9y agoEven if those religious rules mean the animal has to be treated more humanely than the 'secular' systems of approval?
- gambiting 9y agoAbsolutely. 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.
- tomcatfish 9y agoActually, you might be onto sonething with Catholic Cheese. Wine is even better, you could tell the vintage by the seated pope
- nugget 9y agoCan a small minority push too aggressively and embolden a silent majority (or substantially larger plurality) to unify against them and feel justified in resistance? This feels like one of the major themes of the current political climate in the US and parts of EU.
- CrystalLangUser 9y agoOne thing that comes to mind is when muslims raised concerns about Switzerland's flag.[0] This is a different sort of case than described in the article, but pushback here is inevitable. [0]: https://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/schweiz/weg-mit-dem-kreuz-secondos-fuer-neue-schweizer-fahne-113290242 https://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/schweiz/weg-mit-dem-kreuz-sec...
- andybak 9y agoI'd like to know more about that. It seems to blundering terrible as a tactic that it almost makes me think it's a false flag operation.
- icebraining 9y agoThey allege it was a joke: https://www.thelocal.ch/20110928/1324 https://www.thelocal.ch/20110928/1324
- andybak 9y agoNow it all makes more sense. How sadly typical of the current climate.
- thriftwy 9y agoYes, it can, and then it is called 'genocide'.
- MR4D 9y agoNot sure why you got downvotes, but this is exactly where such situations can lead (not always, but definitely happened in the past).
- jacquesm 9y agoWhat 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.
- plainOldText 9y agoI 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.
- FPGAhacker 9y agoNot this reader, if only because I lost interest halfway.
- plainOldText 9y agoI don’t blame you if you did, but often times we discover good gems when we push our boundaries a little further.
- tptacek 9y agoThat 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.
- icelancer 9y ago>> What an overlong and rambling article Not acquainted with NNT's writings, I see. :)
- interstitial 9y agoYou write as if you've never heard of Nassim Nicholas Taleb or realize, this is an exert from a book. That has editors. And publishers. And have sold many copies.
- khawkins 9y agoVery enlightening, but I think the points about non-GMO/organic food are a bad example. The non-GMO/organic movement is a rejection of technologies which improve yields. Distribution costs might have lowered, but supply forces will almost always keep these foods substantially higher in price because yields are lower.
- coldtea 9y agoAre yields really low, or is that just an excuse huge conglomerates like Monsanto that wants to "DRM" seeds use, when they don't care about yields at all? And are they giving a subpar product + patents/copyrights + DRM, and selling it with the same high prices as to make yields irrelevant (when upselling 10x and 100x what you buy produce for, the original yield is an insignificant factor to the price).
- stale2002 9y agoI mean, if they weren't low then why would farms pay money for the more expensive seeds? Farms aren't mom and pop shops anymore. Even the small ones are major, multi-million dollar businesses. This is big company VS big company. And if those mult-million dollar businesses believe that they can get better crops by paying Monsanto, well I think I'll trust their expert opinion on it. If these products are so sub-par, why would the competing, large corporations buy them?
- coldtea 9y ago>I mean, if they weren't low then why would farms pay money for the more expensive seeds? Because they have more assurance of their crop not falling prey to some disease. But even a 100% increase chance of a good yield is nothing (while it means the world to farmers) if the final price is many times what they sell for.
- fzeroracer 9y agoIt's important to keep in mind that the author of this piece is anti-GMO, so the slant in this case is to paint non-GMO foods in a more positive light. And I agree, in general the rejection of GMOs is born out of a fear of technology.
- plainOldText 9y agoAn 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.
- adjkant 9y ago> “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.
- whatshisface 9y agoThe 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 much). What about speech that doesn't directly disparage anybody, but that makes certain people feel incredibly uncomfortable and unwelcome? Well, that can be exclusionary, but everything makes someone uncomfortable. (some Christians might not want you bringing evolution in to schools (which they perceive as just another competing ideology), and some trans people might not enjoy being picked apart in critical gender discussions everywhere they go. The reader might agree with one of those two but probably not both.) So, as you can see, it's really a microcosm of the idea that "we should support good and ban evil."
- rectang 9y agoThe flip side: An intolerant majority. There are good reasons to avoid leaving whether minorities get civil rights to the whim of the majority, and to instead enshrine such rights in a constitution.
- dragonwriter 9y agoConstitutions aren't magic spells, they still rely on people actively choosing to honor them.
- rectang 9y agoToo true. And certainly the US constitution used to enshrine slavery. But the more difficult it is to take away the rights of the minority (particularly the right to vote), the better.
- humanrebar 9y agoWhen the time comes, they'll just ignore the Constitution or at least relieve it of its meaning. The path to a healthy government has to include rule of law. I think the slippery slope we are on is very dangerous. When people decide ignoring the Constitution is easier and just as legitimate as amending it, it is the beginning of the end. I think we already passed that point and I'm not sure how we can recover.
- humanrebar 9y agoSomeone said it's surprising that all three branches of the U.S. government are actively trying to shirk their duties. The President blames Congress for inaction. Congress makes vague and overly complicated bills that mostly enables the executive branch to do actual rulemaking. The Supreme Court, as a rule, tries to be as narrow and impactless as possible. The founders assumed each branch would compete for power. They didn't expect them to actively push responsibility on to other people. It seems like that's why we have a healthy and growing bureaucratic state these days.
- 9y ago
- tchalla 9y agoParadox of Tolerance : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 of intolerance.
- aje403 9y agoAristotle wrote that all matter is composed of 5 elements Popper wrote that society must be intolerant of intolerance http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/purdue-online-writing-lab-bans-use-of-the-word-man/article/2649824 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/purdue-online-writing-lab-...
- andybak 9y agoSorry?
- aje403 9y agoIt's silly, shouldn't be considered the correct viewpoint, but a great soundbite and a nice principle from a very intelligent man. Waters down life. Interolance gets vetted out with prosperity but it's not necessarily the requirement to achieving it as history has shown. I'm not sure how to respond to the bit claiming that societies are destroyed by intolerance - did Popper own any history books? Is China doomed to fail today? I wasn't expecting any up votes, but please tolerate my viewpoints!
- icebraining 9y agoplease tolerate my viewpoints! How could we? You presented none in your original post. Interolance gets vetted out with prosperity but it's not necessarily the requirement to achieving it as history has shown (...) the bit claiming that societies are destroyed by intolerance I don't see where Popper said anything about prosperity or destruction of society as a whole.
- catdograbbit 9y agoI believe it. The most extraordinary evidence of this is the gay rights movement. They've adopted "Love Wins" as their slogan, but then refuse to even interact with people who may not support them (i.e: Mike Pence). Clearly, they don't believe their own propaganda.
- gameswithgo 9y agoYou have made up two stereotypes at once. First that all gay people adopt the slogan "love wins", then that no gay people will interact with Mike Pence. Neither is correct. Further it is so obviously insane that you would cry hypocrisy at people who are loathe to interact with someone who doesn't believe they have the same rights as other human beings, and who has the power to actually make that happen, that you should be ashamed of yourself, for not even being a horrible person in a subtle way.
- tomcatfish 9y agoSecond on this. One of the ways that people tend to construct arguments against a group (from my experience in the midwestern US) is to show contradiction in the other side's argument. This would be a legitimate argument if done fairly, but it seems people always take an unfair route by synthesizing across a group using two opposing inner-sects. My father is often guilty of this, he will talk about "liberals" and I have to remind him that it's more than a little ridiculous to merge an entire political party (in the US, basically) into one viewpoint, treating a one-off statement by a high-schooler with the same value as the running candidate.
- M_Bakhtiari 9y agoCheck your reading. In the parent it says "gay rights movement", not "gay people".
- matt4077 9y agoToo see someone flagging this comment, simply for confronting the gratuitous gay-bashing above is sad.
- matt4077 9y ago
- skybrian 9y agoThe basic argument is interesting but has important preconditions: the majority needs to be tolerant (the change doesn't cost them much). In the case of kosher drinks, it's almost completely invisible. When people actually have a preference (such as how a drink tastes) we find that the market provides a lot of variety despite the cost. Consider the shelves of your average convenience store. Applied to religion, changes are far from costless and we often see persistent disputes. And anyone making large-scale predictions needs to account for how incredibly successful and persistent western culture and products are. This doesn't seem to be due to intolerance.
- pjc50 9y ago> we find that the market provides a lot of variety despite the cost You can have anything you like so long as it's manufactured by Coke.
- aidenn0 9y agoMost supermakets have Coke, Pepsi, and a white-label manufacturer with their brand on it.
- humanrebar 9y agoYou can order anything you want online these days. We're in golden age for microbrews. I see a dozen varieties of hipster ginger beverages in the Whole Foods refrigerator.
- tunesmith 9y agoGood grief, who is this yahoo? I get that he's famous but fighting through his tone to find the actual argument is like trying to breathe underwater. It looks like I found it near the bottom when he's talking about "tolerating intolerance" and Salafism - that the West is slowly committing suicide, by tolerating "intolerant minorities" which will eventually destroy democracy and "destroy our world".
- bitL 9y agoThis is actually why social networks inevitably fail; all small splinter groups become the most vocal, dominating discussion, setting narratives. Even if you remove some of the most extremist groups (like Reddit -> Voat), other, more socially accepted, still stay and might be even more dangerous due to their lower profile/higher acceptance/long-term devastating effects that are hard to predict.
- tlarkworthy 9y agoIn my house we all drink semi skimmed milk even though only 1 member wants it
- wemdyjreichert 9y agoCongratulations. You just won a reader.
- cmurf 9y agoDemocracy is not necessarily the majority. It depends on the reference: eligible voters, or actual voters, as well as the participation rate. The majority "winner" among all eligible voters in most U.S. elections is the non-voter. Voting is not compulsory, and often there are three or more candidates, therefore the winner is usually only getting a plurality of votes from participants. And compared to the eligible citizens, it's really merely a significant minority producing the result. If you add in the effect of primary elections, where an even smaller number but highly motivated voters participate, contributes to even less involvement thus less majoritarian democracy. Ergo in a general election, the three or four choices you have on a ballot (other than write in) were determined by a process usually involving less than 15% of the eligible voters. [1] [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/10/turnout-was-high-in-the-2016-primary-season-but-just-short-of-2008-record/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/10/turnout-was-...
- shaki-dora 9y ago> It is not permissible to use “American values” or “Western principles” in treating intolerant Salafism. The West is currently in the process of committing suicide. This is a far-right diatribe. To see it on HN, where most articles mentioning actual minority rights get flagged into oblivion as “too political” is embarrassing. Just look at the top-level comments: you’ve even got the gay-bashes using this chance to pile on a little, well, gay-bashing. Nobody is closing their eyes to “salafism”. There is no such thing in the US, at least not as a relevant cultural force. The Muslim community is surrounded and infiltrated by three-letter agencies. Yet mentioning such things, or the President’s fascist dog-whistles gets downvoted to #CCCCCC. I happen to live in a country with about 10x as many Muslims as there are in the US, and I have no trouble finding pork or bacon or any other sort of haram food. And if my Heinz ketchup is kosher, which costs about 1/1,000,000 of a cent (see Wikipedia), I have trouble seeing the injustice. If you think there’s a dictatorship of political correctness you should look up both “dictatorship” and ”political correctness” in a dictionary. Usually dictatorships come with power, so I’d like to return mine.
- lifeisstillgood 9y agoThis is not really intolerance winning but a standardisation on the most strict. it's what was missing from things like trans-pacific partnership and other multi-lateral regulatory agreements. Where there are differences in regulation, pretty much the only sane means of harmonising is to choose the most strict, most onerous regulation, as that will (almost certainly) be a superset of the other regulations (if not you probably are discussing regulation of different things) At the moment the EU/US seem to be stuck on chlorination of chicken - but one approach to bactericide will be more effective and win out in time.
- bparsons 9y agoReasonable 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.