5 ms·

Seems a case of what Taleb called 'Tyranny of the Small Minority" or, "the most intolerant wins", In his book "Skin in the Game". Anyway I only gave the book

Seems a case of what Taleb called 'Tyranny of the Small Minority" or, "the most intolerant wins", In his book "Skin in the Game". Anyway I only gave the book 3 stars, but an example is Subway removing pork from stores after strong demand from a religious group.

learc83 8y ago
>is Subway removing pork from stores after strong demand from a religious group Subway didn't actually do that though. Some franchises in India have lamb and chicken instead of pork and beef, and some have no meat options at all. 185 franchises in Muslim neighborhoods in the UK (out of over 1500) serve only halal meat, which means by definition they don't serve pork. Those were just business decisions based on local preferences. You can't get pork at a Subway in a 90% Muslim neighborhood because there isn't a demand for it, not because people forced subway to stop selling it.
- vertline3 8y ago
  Right local pressure, not worldwide. I was under the impression there was some pressure and not just lack of demand, but if that's not the case then a possibility is Taleb's use of the kosher lemonade example. http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/subway-removes-ham-and-bacon-from-menu-after-demand-by-muslims/ http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/subway-removes-ham-and-ba... This post said it was removed by 'Strong demand' so you can see where I came to my understanding. Whereas it did not say removed by lack of demand, as what I think you implied. See it is easier to remove the product, than it is to keep the surfaces clear of the offending product. Do you see how it would be wise to remove it? The point still stands.
  - learc83 8y ago
    Strong demand refers to demand for halal meat, not demand that they remove anything. The article you reference is a rehash of a sensationalist Daily Mail article. The orginal article is even linked at the bottom. That article distorted a PR release by subway talking about customer demand for one type of product, and presented it as something else. The demand for halal meat was actually in opposition to animal rights groups who campaigned against halal meet because they don't agree with the way the animals are slaughtered. This story is actually a counter to your point in that respect. The problem is that the Daily Mail took something akin to McDonalds serving biscuits in some places and english muffins in others, and turned it into a "Muslims are taking over" scare piece. There is a better example of your original point. McDonald's stopped carrying halal meat in the US after a lawsuit by animal rights groups.
    - vertline3 8y ago
      Thanks for your thoughtful reply

learc83 8y ago

>is Subway removing pork from stores after strong demand from a religious group Subway didn't actually do that though. Some franchises in India have lamb and chicken instead of pork and beef, and some have no meat options at all. 185 franchises in Muslim neighborhoods in the UK (out of over 1500) serve only halal meat, which means by definition they don't serve pork. Those were just business decisions based on local preferences. You can't get pork at a Subway in a 90% Muslim neighborhood because there isn't a demand for it, not because people forced subway to stop selling it.

vertline3 8y ago
Right local pressure, not worldwide. I was under the impression there was some pressure and not just lack of demand, but if that's not the case then a possibility is Taleb's use of the kosher lemonade example. http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/subway-removes-ham-and-bacon-from-menu-after-demand-by-muslims/ http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/subway-removes-ham-and-ba... This post said it was removed by 'Strong demand' so you can see where I came to my understanding. Whereas it did not say removed by lack of demand, as what I think you implied. See it is easier to remove the product, than it is to keep the surfaces clear of the offending product. Do you see how it would be wise to remove it? The point still stands.
- learc83 8y ago
  Strong demand refers to demand for halal meat, not demand that they remove anything. The article you reference is a rehash of a sensationalist Daily Mail article. The orginal article is even linked at the bottom. That article distorted a PR release by subway talking about customer demand for one type of product, and presented it as something else. The demand for halal meat was actually in opposition to animal rights groups who campaigned against halal meet because they don't agree with the way the animals are slaughtered. This story is actually a counter to your point in that respect. The problem is that the Daily Mail took something akin to McDonalds serving biscuits in some places and english muffins in others, and turned it into a "Muslims are taking over" scare piece. There is a better example of your original point. McDonald's stopped carrying halal meat in the US after a lawsuit by animal rights groups.
  - vertline3 8y ago
    Thanks for your thoughtful reply