4 ms·

> A tyranny of majority is a thing :( It's a meme for sure. Whether it's a "thing" in the reality of modern American discourse is sort of an open question. T

> A tyranny of majority is a thing :( It's a meme for sure. Whether it's a "thing" in the reality of modern American discourse is sort of an open question. The fact that the people most enthused with the idea of being suppressed by the tyrannical majority are members of the ruling party, dominant gender and most affluent racial demographics sorta makes the logical construction a bit complicated.

nine_k 6y ago
Do you think that racial segregation regulations, anti-gay regulations, long-gone anti-Jewish regulations and fresh anti-immigrant regulations were created against the will of the majority? Often the majority directly voted for them, like city-wide sundown laws. It takes a rather hard conscious effort to remember that other people freedoms need preserving if you value your own, because you are not always guaranteed be on the side of the majority.
- newacct583 6y ago
  I don't disagree that it's happened as an issue of historical fact. I'm pointing out that the argument is most often deployed in defense of very much unsuppressed voices. And I'm implying strongly that it's being deployed in bad faith.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    I'm curious how you're squaring unsuppressed with the "cancel culture" thing whose very purpose appears to be the suppression of those views. You're also ignoring survivorship bias. It's no surprise that the victims of majoritarian tyranny you hear from are not the weakest in society, because the weakest in society don't have enough power to command the spotlight. That doesn't mean tyranny of the majority doesn't exist or that they are not its victims, only that you won't hear it from them, because you don't hear anything from them, because they don't have enough power to be heard.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      > the "cancel culture" thing whose very purpose appears to be the suppression of those views Because the "cancel culture" thing doesn't work? The whole concept is nearly a complete fabrication. It's about 20% anecdotes of college kids saying dumb things mixed with 80% paranoia fueled by the conservative media. No one actually gets cancelled, certainly not the white republican men we're talking about constantly yelling (loudly, in a rather, let's say "unsuppressed" manner) about their Free Speech rights.
smhmd 6y ago
A tyranny of the majority is most certainly a thing. You defining that majority based on race and drawing conclusions is your call, not everyone's. Coming from an Islamic country, minorities such as gay people or non-religious people cannot seek legal action without a strong sense of a chilling effect. In the US, you have the electoral college as an attempt to amplify small state's voices to not have states with massive populations dictate who's president (at least in spirit, as I understand the implementation is far from perfect) which is understandable, since states are _first-class citizens_. The other thing, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you have the house and the senate. The senate adheres to that first-class citizenship of states, while the house is a direct representation of citizens (blocks of them), which makes a tyranny of a majority (e.g. one-size-fits-all bill that suits people of California but wouldn't go well with the people of Wyoming) impossible. So, if you don't feel like there is a tyranny of a majority in the US, you perhaps have to thank your legislative process for that. That sadly, does not map to private entities.

nine_k 6y ago

Do you think that racial segregation regulations, anti-gay regulations, long-gone anti-Jewish regulations and fresh anti-immigrant regulations were created against the will of the majority? Often the majority directly voted for them, like city-wide sundown laws. It takes a rather hard conscious effort to remember that other people freedoms need preserving if you value your own, because you are not always guaranteed be on the side of the majority.

newacct583 6y ago
I don't disagree that it's happened as an issue of historical fact. I'm pointing out that the argument is most often deployed in defense of very much unsuppressed voices. And I'm implying strongly that it's being deployed in bad faith.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  I'm curious how you're squaring unsuppressed with the "cancel culture" thing whose very purpose appears to be the suppression of those views. You're also ignoring survivorship bias. It's no surprise that the victims of majoritarian tyranny you hear from are not the weakest in society, because the weakest in society don't have enough power to command the spotlight. That doesn't mean tyranny of the majority doesn't exist or that they are not its victims, only that you won't hear it from them, because you don't hear anything from them, because they don't have enough power to be heard.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > the "cancel culture" thing whose very purpose appears to be the suppression of those views Because the "cancel culture" thing doesn't work? The whole concept is nearly a complete fabrication. It's about 20% anecdotes of college kids saying dumb things mixed with 80% paranoia fueled by the conservative media. No one actually gets cancelled, certainly not the white republican men we're talking about constantly yelling (loudly, in a rather, let's say "unsuppressed" manner) about their Free Speech rights.

smhmd 6y ago

A tyranny of the majority is most certainly a thing. You defining that majority based on race and drawing conclusions is your call, not everyone's. Coming from an Islamic country, minorities such as gay people or non-religious people cannot seek legal action without a strong sense of a chilling effect. In the US, you have the electoral college as an attempt to amplify small state's voices to not have states with massive populations dictate who's president (at least in spirit, as I understand the implementation is far from perfect) which is understandable, since states are _first-class citizens_. The other thing, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you have the house and the senate. The senate adheres to that first-class citizenship of states, while the house is a direct representation of citizens (blocks of them), which makes a tyranny of a majority (e.g. one-size-fits-all bill that suits people of California but wouldn't go well with the people of Wyoming) impossible. So, if you don't feel like there is a tyranny of a majority in the US, you perhaps have to thank your legislative process for that. That sadly, does not map to private entities.