5 ms·

Looks like that's the very point the author is trying to make. We can't give in to the dictatorship of the Small Minority specially when the most intolerant peo

by ajaimk 6y ago

Looks like that's the very point the author is trying to make. We can't give in to the dictatorship of the Small Minority specially when the most intolerant people seem to scream the loudest.

crdrost 6y ago
Oh HN, I weep for you. You trade compassionate impulses for paranoia about nonexistent dictatorships. You wish to have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too about topics like the power of words themselves — so that it’s “get off my back, my words do not have real power” but then this eats your very argument. If words DO have power, then you are legit hurting others: fix your shit. If words do not, then there is no point whining about the dangers of “dictators” telling you what words you can and can't use as it's all “who-gives-a-damn” anyway: and apparently these people before you give a damn, and if it is not too hard there is no excuse. This issue is not even a US-specific thing... I recall a Russian professor who got really hurt at some slides that showed metal links cracking around hands, “we are breaking the chains of existing physics methods,” as that has some really nasty power to make people uncomfortable if they are old enough to remember Stalin. I do not have a true solution, I am just sad. Because the true disease here is ego, is self-directed-ness, a cancer of me-me-me. Religions fix that, but good luck trying to promote that, heh. And the sort of people to be upset that “master-slave” makes reference to practices that have defined thousands of years of all nations’ history, are not likely to be ones to hear about the value of “emotionally intelligent leadership” or whatever the buzzword is now for not being a dick, and so that's not either. Truly depressing. As a minor historical footnote, it's not even accurate. Like the assumption is that slaves and masters are two different things, that having power and being property are two different states of being and it's impossible to be property while simultaneously having power. It's not just that those two concerns are obviously not opposites of each other... then you might say “well in practice...” But, like, it has also happened in history that slaves have occasionally ruled over nations[1]. They generally did well as rulers go, because a lot of history is really strong warlords coming to power and being extremely effective—perhaps even progressive and transformative—until they hand over the reins to their children who are not quite as talented as they were: and everything decays into a power and politics game, in all that nastiness. By choosing those without the right to a family to lead, that whole sordid business was avoided. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mamluk_sultans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mamluk_sultans
capitol_ 6y ago
It's a bit unclear if you are just trying to express the authors views or your own, but if those are your own views I felt that it warranted a reply. The concept of "dictatorship of small minority" implies that the only governing principle should be the vote of the majority. But that is a deeply flawed system, if there wasn't any other rule than "majority wins" then all oppression of minorities becomes valid and all abuse where the perpetrators outnumber the victims. For a system to be fair there must exist more rules than that, for example "respect bodily autonomy" and "no oppression of minorities" and so on. Many of those rules are more fundamental than the "majority wins" rule and more important to uphold. If those are not your own views: Sorry for the rant.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > The concept of "dictatorship of small minority" implies that the only governing principle should be the vote of the majority. No, it does not. "I don't want to live under dictator A" does not imply "I want to enslave A" or "I want to live under dictator B", it only implies that I do not want to live under dictator A.

by ajaimk 6y ago

Looks like that's the very point the author is trying to make. We can't give in to the dictatorship of the Small Minority specially when the most intolerant people seem to scream the loudest.

crdrost 6y ago

Oh HN, I weep for you. You trade compassionate impulses for paranoia about nonexistent dictatorships. You wish to have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too about topics like the power of words themselves — so that it’s “get off my back, my words do not have real power” but then this eats your very argument. If words DO have power, then you are legit hurting others: fix your shit. If words do not, then there is no point whining about the dangers of “dictators” telling you what words you can and can't use as it's all “who-gives-a-damn” anyway: and apparently these people before you give a damn, and if it is not too hard there is no excuse. This issue is not even a US-specific thing... I recall a Russian professor who got really hurt at some slides that showed metal links cracking around hands, “we are breaking the chains of existing physics methods,” as that has some really nasty power to make people uncomfortable if they are old enough to remember Stalin. I do not have a true solution, I am just sad. Because the true disease here is ego, is self-directed-ness, a cancer of me-me-me. Religions fix that, but good luck trying to promote that, heh. And the sort of people to be upset that “master-slave” makes reference to practices that have defined thousands of years of all nations’ history, are not likely to be ones to hear about the value of “emotionally intelligent leadership” or whatever the buzzword is now for not being a dick, and so that's not either. Truly depressing. As a minor historical footnote, it's not even accurate. Like the assumption is that slaves and masters are two different things, that having power and being property are two different states of being and it's impossible to be property while simultaneously having power. It's not just that those two concerns are obviously not opposites of each other... then you might say “well in practice...” But, like, it has also happened in history that slaves have occasionally ruled over nations[1]. They generally did well as rulers go, because a lot of history is really strong warlords coming to power and being extremely effective—perhaps even progressive and transformative—until they hand over the reins to their children who are not quite as talented as they were: and everything decays into a power and politics game, in all that nastiness. By choosing those without the right to a family to lead, that whole sordid business was avoided. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mamluk_sultans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mamluk_sultans

capitol_ 6y ago

It's a bit unclear if you are just trying to express the authors views or your own, but if those are your own views I felt that it warranted a reply. The concept of "dictatorship of small minority" implies that the only governing principle should be the vote of the majority. But that is a deeply flawed system, if there wasn't any other rule than "majority wins" then all oppression of minorities becomes valid and all abuse where the perpetrators outnumber the victims. For a system to be fair there must exist more rules than that, for example "respect bodily autonomy" and "no oppression of minorities" and so on. Many of those rules are more fundamental than the "majority wins" rule and more important to uphold. If those are not your own views: Sorry for the rant.

luckylion 6y ago
> The concept of "dictatorship of small minority" implies that the only governing principle should be the vote of the majority. No, it does not. "I don't want to live under dictator A" does not imply "I want to enslave A" or "I want to live under dictator B", it only implies that I do not want to live under dictator A.