12 ms·

Can a small minority push too aggressively and embolden a silent majority (or substantially larger plurality) to unify against them and feel justified in resist

by nugget 9y ago

Can 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 ago
One 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 ago
  I'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 ago
    They allege it was a joke: https://www.thelocal.ch/20110928/1324 https://www.thelocal.ch/20110928/1324
    - andybak 9y ago
      Now it all makes more sense. How sadly typical of the current climate.
thriftwy 9y ago
Yes, it can, and then it is called 'genocide'.
- MR4D 9y ago
  Not sure why you got downvotes, but this is exactly where such situations can lead (not always, but definitely happened in the past).
  - grzm 9y ago
    > "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 sure why you got downvotes". It doesn't add anything to the discussion and is against the guidelines.
    - thriftwy 9y ago
      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.
      - grzm 9y ago
        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.

by nugget 9y ago

CrystalLangUser 9y ago

One 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 ago
I'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 ago
  They allege it was a joke: https://www.thelocal.ch/20110928/1324 https://www.thelocal.ch/20110928/1324
  - andybak 9y ago
    Now it all makes more sense. How sadly typical of the current climate.

thriftwy 9y ago

Yes, it can, and then it is called 'genocide'.

MR4D 9y ago
Not sure why you got downvotes, but this is exactly where such situations can lead (not always, but definitely happened in the past).
- grzm 9y ago
  > "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 sure why you got downvotes". It doesn't add anything to the discussion and is against the guidelines.
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    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.
    - grzm 9y ago
      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.