4 ms·

Comments section is only two levels deep and we have already arrived at Godwin's law.

by Eduard 5y ago

nix23 5y ago
I don't compare you with a nazi, but you should understand that minority's can take over a country, that's what the nazis did but also the communists in romanov-russia...china is more complicated. It's something completely different, but maybe "nazi" is a red flag for you in comments...because not comfy. EDIT: And more actual, the Taliban's in Afghanistan, an absolute minority but the one with weapons, training, connections to local "war/land"-lords and the will to take over the country.
- necovek 5y ago
  If you define majority as 50%+1, and minority as 50%-1, almost all democracies in the world have the minority in the power (unless they get 100% turn out rate with all votes contributing to parliamentary seats). Winning 60% of votes with a turn out of 70% voters is only 42% of the population.
  - nix23 5y ago
    >However, despite waging a campaign of terror against their opponents, the Nazis only tallied 43.9 percent of the vote on their own, well short of a majority to govern alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_elec...
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    Nah, people staying home on polling day doesn't stop them from being part of the majority opinion. If an option gets 60% of the vote, and there are no shenanigans going on, then that option is almost certainly the choice of the majority.
    - necovek 5y ago
      That's a pretty flexible definition of "choice" ;) Does this also hold if the vote went 51% to 49% (in dual party system)? Democracy is there to allow us to express a preference. Not voting is exactly that, a preference to not vote, and reasons are certainly various (including the one you mention of supporting the likely winner).
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        > That's a pretty flexible definition of "choice" ;) If you choose not to vote, you're putting endorsement toward what everyone else does. If nothing particularly weird or bad is going on, the people not voting should be similar to the people voting. And you can pretend I said "preference" if you don't like the word choice. Doesn't change my argument. > Does this also hold if the vote went 51% to 49% (in dual party system)? No, statistically that's too close. But when you get 60% of a 70% turnout, to reverse that the rest of the population would have prefer to vote about 3:1 in the opposite direction. That's not likely.
- ngc248 5y ago
  Godwin's law is not exactly a law, but an observation. Your comment is justified, because the current zietgeist is "majority wrong and minority right" and your comment is highlighting the dangers of such a process.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  Or the Alawites in Syria, or the Europeans in 18th century North America, or the Mongols, or a hundred other examples. There's a line somewhere between less-violent "minorities taking over a country" and more violent Mongol-like "taking over", but I would say that the situation of a minority group seizing power is not significantly less common than of a majority group seizing power.
  - nix23 5y ago
    Yes absolutely on your side, being just against the general thinking that minority's are per se good and must always be protected from criticism.
- bigbillheck 5y ago
  Billionaires in America.
LoveMortuus 5y ago
First time I'm seeing it on HN though!

Comments section is only two levels deep and we have already arrived at Godwin's law.

by Eduard 5y ago

Comments section is only two levels deep and we have already arrived at Godwin's law.

I don't compare you with a nazi, but you should understand that minority's can take over a country, that's what the nazis did but also the communists in romanov-russia...china is more complicated. It's something completely different, but maybe "nazi" is a red flag for you in comments...because not comfy. EDIT: And more actual, the Taliban's in Afghanistan, an absolute minority but the one with weapons, training, connections to local "war/land"-lords and the will to take over the country.

necovek 5y ago
If you define majority as 50%+1, and minority as 50%-1, almost all democracies in the world have the minority in the power (unless they get 100% turn out rate with all votes contributing to parliamentary seats). Winning 60% of votes with a turn out of 70% voters is only 42% of the population.
- nix23 5y ago
  >However, despite waging a campaign of terror against their opponents, the Nazis only tallied 43.9 percent of the vote on their own, well short of a majority to govern alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_elec...
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Nah, people staying home on polling day doesn't stop them from being part of the majority opinion. If an option gets 60% of the vote, and there are no shenanigans going on, then that option is almost certainly the choice of the majority.
  - necovek 5y ago
    That's a pretty flexible definition of "choice" ;) Does this also hold if the vote went 51% to 49% (in dual party system)? Democracy is there to allow us to express a preference. Not voting is exactly that, a preference to not vote, and reasons are certainly various (including the one you mention of supporting the likely winner).
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > That's a pretty flexible definition of "choice" ;) If you choose not to vote, you're putting endorsement toward what everyone else does. If nothing particularly weird or bad is going on, the people not voting should be similar to the people voting. And you can pretend I said "preference" if you don't like the word choice. Doesn't change my argument. > Does this also hold if the vote went 51% to 49% (in dual party system)? No, statistically that's too close. But when you get 60% of a 70% turnout, to reverse that the rest of the population would have prefer to vote about 3:1 in the opposite direction. That's not likely.
ngc248 5y ago
Godwin's law is not exactly a law, but an observation. Your comment is justified, because the current zietgeist is "majority wrong and minority right" and your comment is highlighting the dangers of such a process.
dotancohen 5y ago
Or the Alawites in Syria, or the Europeans in 18th century North America, or the Mongols, or a hundred other examples. There's a line somewhere between less-violent "minorities taking over a country" and more violent Mongol-like "taking over", but I would say that the situation of a minority group seizing power is not significantly less common than of a majority group seizing power.
- nix23 5y ago
  Yes absolutely on your side, being just against the general thinking that minority's are per se good and must always be protected from criticism.
bigbillheck 5y ago
Billionaires in America.

LoveMortuus 5y ago

First time I'm seeing it on HN though!