
The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority (2016) - plainOldText
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
======
denzil_correa
Paradox of Tolerance :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

> The paradox of tolerance was described by Karl Popper in 1945. The paradox
> states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be
> tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper
> came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a
> tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

~~~
conanbatt
> But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;
> for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the
> level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may
> forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is
> deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or
> pistols.

He is meaning that there should be intolerance to violent intolerance, not to
any intolerance.

That is my interpretation at least, and I find it very disingenuous to omit
that part.

~~~
KirinDave
Pretty much every intolerance worth opposing harnesses very violent elements
in it's base while maintaining a veneer of civility.

Look at religious motivated systemic violence against LGBT people in the US.
Our current executive has waved a rainbow flag a time or two, but our vice
president has personally funded things that look like camps and penned
legislation that let's police ignore and LGBT person being beaten on the
street. Neither of these things are particularly unfair characterizations.

So yeah, you're right. It's just that intolerance naturally leads to violence
rather quickly in humans.

~~~
akkat
That's terrible! I can't seem to find a source of the vice president being
connected to legislation allowing police to ignore LGBT people being beaten.
Can you give me the link to one?

Also, what do you mean by camps? Forced orientation changing?

~~~
chillwaves
> While running for Congress, Indiana governor Mike Pence called for state
> funding for "institutions" working to enable people to "change their sexual
> behavior."

[https://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-
conversion-t...](https://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-
therapy/)

~~~
danieltillett
Not that I think "gay conversion" is effective (maybe at the margins), but as
society we do seem to beleive that others sexual orientations can be changed
via incarceration.

~~~
danieltillett
I am replying to myself since I am fascinated by the other three responses.
None of them are responding to what I actually wrote and all of them are
responding to what they think I wrote. All of them are wrong in guessing what
I think I wrote.

------
jacquesm
What an overlong and rambling article. Over the years I've found the big trick
in writing is to know what to leave out. This is hard to get right but TFA
could really do with some editing, it would probably be a stronger article at
1/4 the size that it is.

~~~
tptacek
This is so true that me and 'jacquesm actually agree on it.

I think there's an Emperor's New Clothes thing happening with Taleb.
Apparently, his technical writing is important and impactful. But his popular
writing is prolix, repetitive, smug, and sometimes ill-reasoned.

~~~
jonahx
This clip, one of the most impressive word salads you'll hear from a public
intellectual, will confirm your impression beyond all doubt:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H11t5zBd3fU&t=25s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H11t5zBd3fU&t=25s)

~~~
jacquesm
Wow. That's actually an incredible example of how to bullshit your way into
fame. Do you think he believes his own nonsense?

------
nugget
Can a small minority push too aggressively and embolden a silent majority (or
substantially larger plurality) to unify against them and feel justified in
resistance? This feels like one of the major themes of the current political
climate in the US and parts of EU.

~~~
CrystalLangUser
One thing that comes to mind is when muslims raised concerns about
Switzerland's flag.[0]

This is a different sort of case than described in the article, but pushback
here is inevitable.

[0]: [https://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/schweiz/weg-mit-dem-kreuz-
sec...](https://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/schweiz/weg-mit-dem-kreuz-secondos-
fuer-neue-schweizer-fahne-113290242)

~~~
andybak
I'd like to know more about that. It seems to blundering terrible as a tactic
that it almost makes me think it's a false flag operation.

~~~
icebraining
They allege it was a joke:
[https://www.thelocal.ch/20110928/1324](https://www.thelocal.ch/20110928/1324)

~~~
andybak
Now it all makes more sense. How sadly typical of the current climate.

------
plainOldText
An interesting bit:

 _Clearly can democracy –by definition the majority — tolerate enemies? The
question is as follows: “ Would you agree to deny the freedom of speech to
every political party that has in its charter the banning the freedom of
speech?” Let’s go one step further, “Should a society that has elected to be
tolerant be intolerant about intolerance?”_

To which he later concludes:

 _We can answer these points using the minority rule. Yes, an intolerant
minority can control and destroy democracy. Actually, as we saw, it will
eventually destroy our world.

So, we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities. It is
not permissible to use “American values” or “Western principles” in treating
intolerant Salafism (which denies other peoples’ right to have their own
religion). The West is currently in the process of committing suicide._

~~~
adjkant
> “Should a society that has elected to be tolerant be intolerant about
> intolerance?”

This is something philosophy has actually done well to detail. It's the
paradox of tolerance, and I think the answer absolutely has to be yes. For
those looking for easy surface level gotcha's, that seems like a problem. Dig
deeper, and it's logically consistent with the belief of tolerance, for if one
allows intolerance, their tolerance loses all value.

~~~
whatshisface
The problem that opens up is the definition of intolerance. Are direct claims
against the rights of others to believe something intolerant? Yes, they
probably are. What about speaking against groups of people (in a broad sense,
calling out some perceived problem with their behavior)? Well, sometimes
that's intolerant, sometimes something needs to be said (maybe that group is
the Inner Party and they're taking too much). What about speech that doesn't
directly disparage anybody, but that makes certain people feel incredibly
uncomfortable and unwelcome? Well, that can be exclusionary, but everything
makes _someone_ uncomfortable. (some Christians might not want you bringing
evolution in to schools (which they perceive as just another competing
ideology), and some trans people might not enjoy being picked apart in
critical gender discussions everywhere they go. The reader might agree with
one of those two but probably not both.)

So, as you can see, it's really a microcosm of the idea that "we should
support good and ban evil."

~~~
adjkant
Agreed. I think the solution is to really pluck at those grey areas, as of
course it's easy to work in black and white. To generalize, I think the
general best course is to first understand why the intolerance exists, its
validity, and then address it from there in ways still consistent with
tolerance. Easier said than done of course, but I'm not intending to write a
philosophical dissertation here fully.

As a reminder that many who likely support this view need, you should be
intolerant of intolerance, not people who hold intolerant beliefs or practice
intolerance.

~~~
humanrebar
> ...not people who hold intolerant beliefs or practice intolerance.

The problem is that we've done a splendid job blurring the lines between
identities, beliefs, speech, and behavior. We have no ground rules for how to
be intolerant of some things without seeming intolerant of the people that
care deeply about those things.

------
khawkins
Very enlightening, but I think the points about non-GMO/organic food are a bad
example. The non-GMO/organic movement is a rejection of technologies which
improve yields. Distribution costs might have lowered, but supply forces will
almost always keep these foods substantially higher in price because yields
are lower.

~~~
coldtea
Are yields really low, or is that just an excuse huge conglomerates like
Monsanto that wants to "DRM" seeds use, when they don't care about yields at
all?

And are they giving a subpar product + patents/copyrights + DRM, and selling
it with the same high prices as to make yields irrelevant (when upselling 10x
and 100x what you buy produce for, the original yield is an insignificant
factor to the price).

~~~
stale2002
I mean, if they weren't low then why would farms pay money for the more
expensive seeds?

Farms aren't mom and pop shops anymore. Even the small ones are major, multi-
million dollar businesses. This is big company VS big company.

And if those mult-million dollar businesses believe that they can get better
crops by paying Monsanto, well I think I'll trust their expert opinion on it.

If these products are so sub-par, why would the competing, large corporations
buy them?

~~~
coldtea
> _I mean, if they weren 't low then why would farms pay money for the more
> expensive seeds?_

Because they have more assurance of their crop not falling prey to some
disease. But even a 100% increase chance of a good yield is nothing (while it
means the world to farmers) if the final price is many times what they sell
for.

------
skybrian
The basic argument is interesting but has important preconditions: the
majority needs to be tolerant (the change doesn't cost them much). In the case
of kosher drinks, it's almost completely invisible.

When people actually have a preference (such as how a drink tastes) we find
that the market provides a lot of variety despite the cost. Consider the
shelves of your average convenience store.

Applied to religion, changes are far from costless and we often see persistent
disputes. And anyone making large-scale predictions needs to account for how
incredibly successful and persistent western culture and products are. This
doesn't seem to be due to intolerance.

~~~
pjc50
> we find that the market provides a lot of variety despite the cost

You can have anything you like so long as it's manufactured by Coke.

~~~
aidenn0
Most supermakets have Coke, Pepsi, and a white-label manufacturer with their
brand on it.

------
rectang
The flip side: An intolerant majority. There are good reasons to avoid leaving
whether minorities get civil rights to the whim of the majority, and to
instead enshrine such rights in a constitution.

~~~
dragonwriter
Constitutions aren't magic spells, they still rely on people actively choosing
to honor them.

~~~
humanrebar
Someone said it's surprising that all three branches of the U.S. government
are actively trying to shirk their duties. The President blames Congress for
inaction. Congress makes vague and overly complicated bills that mostly
enables the executive branch to do actual rulemaking. The Supreme Court, as a
rule, tries to be as narrow and impactless as possible.

The founders assumed each branch would _compete_ for power. They didn't expect
them to actively push responsibility on to other people. It seems like that's
why we have a healthy and growing bureaucratic state these days.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The founders assumed each branch would compete for power.

They do. Part of that competition is trying to pass blame for things to the
other branches, including blame for inaction that the people in office want
but the electorate does not, since blame = reduced public support = reduced
effective power.

> They didn't expect them to actively push responsibility on to other people.

They probably did, since the framers had plenty of experience with elected
politicians (often being such themselves) and blame passing among such
politicians is as old as electoral politics (and blame-shifting among
politicians more generally is pretty much universal in history, too.)

------
MollyR
Maybe in the western cultures, but I've been hearing variations of the "nail
that sticks out gets hammered down" from my korean family for a long time.

~~~
CrystalLangUser
That sentiment comes from the Confucianism, Buddhism, and Neo-Confucianism
which shaped Korea. I think that sits alongside with the points the article is
making.

Similar to the McDonalds in Milan example in the article, Korea has LotteMart
everywhere, and people do sometimes eat there instead of a local joint.

Koreans also study English just like other countries. The annual 수능 exam taken
by students is considered to be extremely important for college applications.
It has a section on English.

------
bitL
This is actually why social networks inevitably fail; all small splinter
groups become the most vocal, dominating discussion, setting narratives. Even
if you remove some of the most extremist groups (like Reddit -> Voat), other,
more socially accepted, still stay and might be even more dangerous due to
their lower profile/higher acceptance/long-term devastating effects that are
hard to predict.

------
cmurf
Democracy is not necessarily the majority. It depends on the reference:
eligible voters, or actual voters, as well as the participation rate.

The majority "winner" among all eligible voters in most U.S. elections is the
non-voter. Voting is not compulsory, and often there are three or more
candidates, therefore the winner is usually only getting a plurality of votes
from participants. And compared to the eligible citizens, it's really merely a
significant minority producing the result.

If you add in the effect of primary elections, where an even smaller number
but highly motivated voters participate, contributes to even less involvement
thus less majoritarian democracy. Ergo in a general election, the three or
four choices you have on a ballot (other than write in) were determined by a
process usually involving less than 15% of the eligible voters. [1]

[1] [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/10/turnout-
was-...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/10/turnout-was-high-in-
the-2016-primary-season-but-just-short-of-2008-record/)

------
bparsons
Reasonable accommodation often comes down to a cost argument. In almost all
the examples the author cites, it costs next to nothing to accommodate these
small groups of people.

It is a corporation or a society deciding that it is willing to make a
minuscule procedural or behavioral adjustment in order to accommodate a group
of people. For those who don't have a peanut allergy or religious dietary
restrictions, the difference is barely perceptible.

If you are a government or a corporation that services tens or hundreds of
millions of people. You don't make policies or products just for a plurality
or majority of individuals-- you try to them compatible for as many people as
possible.

This isn't "tyranny of the minority", it is just good design.

------
lifeisstillgood
This is not really intolerance winning but a standardisation on the most
strict.

it's what was missing from things like trans-pacific partnership and other
multi-lateral regulatory agreements.

Where there are differences in regulation, pretty much the only sane means of
harmonising is to choose the most strict, most onerous regulation, as that
will (almost certainly) be a superset of the other regulations (if not you
probably are discussing regulation of different things)

At the moment the EU/US seem to be stuck on chlorination of chicken - but one
approach to bactericide will be more effective and win out in time.

------
gambiting
"A Kosher (or halal) eater will never eat nonkosher (or nonhalal) food , but a
nonkosher eater isn’t banned from eating kosher."

I absolutely never buy halal meat and whenever possible try to avoid kosher
certified foods. I do try to vote with my wallet and keep religion out of my
food as much as physically possible.

~~~
dionian
Even if those religious rules mean the animal has to be treated more humanely
than the 'secular' systems of approval?

~~~
gambiting
Absolutely. It's purely about the involvement of religion that puts me off. If
there was a "Catholic church approved cheese" I'd refuse to buy that too.

~~~
icebraining
Your loss. Monasteries and convents make some awesome foodstuffs, including
great beer.

------
tlarkworthy
In my house we all drink semi skimmed milk even though only 1 member wants it

------
wemdyjreichert
Congratulations. You just won a reader.

------
catdograbbit
I believe it. The most extraordinary evidence of this is the gay rights
movement. They've adopted "Love Wins" as their slogan, but then refuse to even
interact with people who may not support them (i.e: Mike Pence). Clearly, they
don't believe their own propaganda.

~~~
gameswithgo
You have made up two stereotypes at once. First that all gay people adopt the
slogan "love wins", then that no gay people will interact with Mike Pence.
Neither is correct. Further it is so obviously insane that you would cry
hypocrisy at people who are loathe to interact with someone who doesn't
believe they have the same rights as other _human beings_ , and who has the
power to actually make that happen, that you should be ashamed of yourself,
for not even being a horrible person in a subtle way.

~~~
tomcatfish
Second on this. One of the ways that people tend to construct arguments
against a group (from my experience in the midwestern US) is to show
contradiction in the other side's argument. This would be a legitimate
argument if done fairly, but it seems people always take an unfair route by
synthesizing across a group using two opposing inner-sects. My father is often
guilty of this, he will talk about "liberals" and I have to remind him that
it's more than a little ridiculous to merge an entire political party (in the
US, basically) into one viewpoint, treating a one-off statement by a high-
schooler with the same value as the running candidate.

------
shaki-dora
> It is not permissible to use “American values” or “Western principles” in
> treating intolerant Salafism. The West is currently in the process of
> committing suicide.

This is a far-right diatribe. To see it on HN, where most articles mentioning
actual minority rights get flagged into oblivion as “too political” is
embarrassing. Just look at the top-level comments: you’ve even got the gay-
bashes using this chance to pile on a little, well, gay-bashing.

Nobody is closing their eyes to “salafism”. There is no such thing in the US,
at least not as a relevant cultural force. The Muslim community is surrounded
and infiltrated by three-letter agencies. Yet mentioning such things, or the
President’s fascist dog-whistles gets downvoted to #CCCCCC. I happen to live
in a country with about 10x as many Muslims as there are in the US, and I have
no trouble finding pork or bacon or any other sort of haram food. And if my
Heinz ketchup is kosher, which costs about 1/1,000,000 of a cent (see
Wikipedia), I have trouble seeing the injustice.

If you think there’s a dictatorship of political correctness you should look
up both “dictatorship” and ”political correctness” in a dictionary. Usually
dictatorships come with power, so I’d like to return mine.

