5 ms·

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 yo

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.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  I'm not sure actually. It boils up because people engage in debate instead of doing two things: * Taking issues to a vote. * Respecting boundaries of other people. Debate implies you can change other person's opinion. However, it often tries to talk your way to measures that would never float in a fair voting, or that violate already existing personal or property boundaries. After a few rounds of debate you're supposed to take it to poll booth. Instead it often turns into name-calling and shouting "nazi" at each other. That kind of discussion should be avoided.
pjc50 9y ago
> 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 squad. One of the key elements of peace in Northern Ireland was the disarming of the Republican side - and the corresponding de-militarisation of the police.
- mamon 9y ago
  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 same problem that I would call: "the most intolerant lawmaker wins".
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > 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)
    - mamon 9y ago
      Both of those happened: first is a part of "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union", soon to be required to be implemented by all member states. Second is already happening in the UK, although, I admit, it's not a law, it's case by case basis (by school principals).
      - 9y ago
pessimizer 9y ago
> When the minority doesn't like you > and you don't like said minority The first of these factors is not particularly contributory to genocides, or at least the mechanism is mysterious. It reminds me of how people describe US racial problems as "blacks and whites disliking and distrusting each other." A desire for symmetry in genocides is a particularly egregious case, though.
goldideas 9y ago
Zoning laws? Perhaps something similar to a system used in South Africa? Didn't seem to decrease friction if you ask me or anyone who has heard of apartheid...
- shard972 9y ago
  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 success and didn't end up going down a similar route as zimbabwe.
  - goldideas 9y ago
    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.
    - shard972 9y ago
      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.

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.

thriftwy 9y ago
I'm not sure actually. It boils up because people engage in debate instead of doing two things: * Taking issues to a vote. * Respecting boundaries of other people. Debate implies you can change other person's opinion. However, it often tries to talk your way to measures that would never float in a fair voting, or that violate already existing personal or property boundaries. After a few rounds of debate you're supposed to take it to poll booth. Instead it often turns into name-calling and shouting "nazi" at each other. That kind of discussion should be avoided.

pjc50 9y ago

> 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 squad. One of the key elements of peace in Northern Ireland was the disarming of the Republican side - and the corresponding de-militarisation of the police.

mamon 9y ago
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 same problem that I would call: "the most intolerant lawmaker wins".
- pjc50 9y ago
  > 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)
  - mamon 9y ago
    Both of those happened: first is a part of "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union", soon to be required to be implemented by all member states. Second is already happening in the UK, although, I admit, it's not a law, it's case by case basis (by school principals).
    - 9y ago

pessimizer 9y ago

> When the minority doesn't like you > and you don't like said minority The first of these factors is not particularly contributory to genocides, or at least the mechanism is mysterious. It reminds me of how people describe US racial problems as "blacks and whites disliking and distrusting each other." A desire for symmetry in genocides is a particularly egregious case, though.

goldideas 9y ago

Zoning laws? Perhaps something similar to a system used in South Africa? Didn't seem to decrease friction if you ask me or anyone who has heard of apartheid...

shard972 9y ago
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 success and didn't end up going down a similar route as zimbabwe.
- goldideas 9y ago
  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.
  - shard972 9y ago
    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.