This is a prime example of a motte-and-bailey: The motte: - when consensus or even majority is the norm, [the mediocre] have the power - [to outlaw the outli

This is a prime example of a motte-and-bailey: The motte: - when consensus or even majority is the norm, [the mediocre] have the power - [to outlaw the outliers] is in the interest of the mediocre The bailey: - most people are mediocre You're defending the bailey but that's not what I was attacking. I very much stated that "[m]ost people are mediocre at any given thing by definition", which is what you're falling back to here as if I disagreed with that. To paraphrase, your argument was that "the mediocre" share a group interest and that group interest is to suppress ("outlaw") those who are exceptional. Instead of further qualifying that, you refer to it as human nature. You also state that consensus-seeking or "majority rule" enables this suppression. Based on your framing this is not only a thing that happens but also a bad thing. The logical but unstated conclusion is that any form of democracy or consensus-based rule is bad because it kneecaps exceptional people in their ability to be exceptional. This is why I referred to the Great Man myth, which states that historical advances are the accomplishments of singular exceptional people rather than material realities and social dynamics. Again, the crux of your argument hinges on "the mediocre" being a meaningful group that has shared interests and that these interests involve suppressing "outliers". You have demonstrated zero evidence for either of these claims.