An interesting way of expressing a pretty simple idea: if some small group cares about something that doesn't matter much to anyone else, they're likely to get their way. And why not? If nobody else cares, then it doesn't matter whether this vocal minority gets their way or not.
I mean, I don't really think so. Most things don't matter to most people. For instance, I really could not care less whether or not my pad see ew is cooked with peanut oil or not. My roommate will die if hers is. So, we get pad see ew that's cooked with vegetable oil. I can walk up a ramp and use an elevator; my best friend cannot walk up stairs. So, we live in a building with an elevator and a door ramp, and I support the ADA. Et cetera, et cetera.
Similar principles apply to kashrut (kosher food), halal meat, etc. with the exception that I _do_ want pork to be available - and, lo and behold, it is, because the majority do care about that one. There are few places in the US where one really cannot get pork.
Personally, I think that this kind of thing is the mark of a functioning society. When some people have specific needs that don't harm others, there's no reason not to cater to those people. I think we can apply this to a lot of other things, too, that are forbidden mostly due to social taboo rather than actual harm - things like advanced insulins not being available to adults without a prescription, body modification and piercing artists not being allowed to use local anesthesia, and so forth.
Yes, I absolutely agree. If the majority isn't harmed, it's fine for the minority to get their way, and if the majority _is_ harmed, they can use their equal democratic representation to solve that (if they do, in fact, have it.)
Citizens United didn't change any established laws. It reiterated the already-existing fact that people don't lose their free speech rights just because they've banded together into a business entity. The Clinton campaign tried to use the law to silence her political opponents and the court said "no".
I possibly don't know all the ins and outs of the various religious food rules so let's stick to the less flame-war-y nut allergies.
The people who have nut allergies, and the people who don't want the people with nut allergies to die, and the people who don't want the people with nut allergies to feel socially excluded, and those that feel some social obligation not to kill the guests at their child's birthday party and a further fuzzy group of people who have other allergies or preferences or care about people who do, or follow some kind of "do unto others" morality is probably quite large.
And the cost of skipping nuts (as he discusses) is fairly minor, even to people who would actively like to kill anyone with nut allergies.
So, how does "dictatorship of the minority" deserve that title?
And how did we get from there, via some name dropping anecdotes, to "western civilization is commiting suicide"?
You've made two extreme leaps (accepting not eating nuts would lead to accepting an untested vaccine; accepting an untested vaccine would lead to accepting genital mutilation) and implied at least four complete falsehoods (that the COVID vaccine was "loosely tested", that COVID has a 99.98% survival rate, that GRS involves "chopping off genitals", and that absolutely anyone supports making GRS available to minors) here. Is that intentional?
I did not say "no u," I said you were factually incorrect. You made silly and extraordinary claims without evidence. Don't come asking me for a higher standard than you're willing to uphold yourself.
Well then you have to skip the nuts. And the seashells. And the milk. And everything containing gluten. And probably eggs. And whatever else people can have allergies to. Gonna be an interesting diet.
But we actually _do_ accommodate those allergies. I know someone with severe peanut, tree nut, and milk allergies. I spend lots of time with her, and yet I can still drink milkshakes and eat Reese's Cups. The idea that accommodating someone means utterly restricting everyone else's freedom is, frankly, ridiculous.
But yes that's the point, we do this on a case-by-case basis, after communicating, not generally because someone could show up and be allergic to nuts. Making a lemonade kosher is a no-brainer, so there's no problem with doing it. But if I had to go out of my way to find food with peanuts because we want to be safe by default, I'd have a problem with that.
I've seen some epic flame wars over the peanut restrictions in schools. They tend to catch my eye since one of my kids has a peanut allergy. People assume that these rules are created by pearl clutching "concerned parents".
I've never seen parents advocate for peanut bans in real life. It has probably happened but it seems like the "preachy vegan", more of a myth than a reality.
I suspect the real reason many schools have put restrictions in place on peanuts is that it simply makes their job easier. When you have to deal with hundreds of unruly kids it's hard to keep an eye on individuals. Sending kids to the ER is a bad look. Dealing with insurance stuff or lawsuits is a pain. Eliminating a source of headaches and shoving the inconvenience onto the parents is a no-brainer.
Javascript being the lingua franca for all engineers eventually dominated the market. Not because it is a good language, but because everybody spoke it.
Typescript movement can be viewed as vocal minority imposing it's rules over everybody: once you get converted to TS you start hating Javascript. Now, it might mean that TS is just better, period. But another explanation could be that TS is simply viral in the JS environment, similar to Islam being viral in Coptic Egypt.
20 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 37.0 ms ] threadSimilar principles apply to kashrut (kosher food), halal meat, etc. with the exception that I _do_ want pork to be available - and, lo and behold, it is, because the majority do care about that one. There are few places in the US where one really cannot get pork.
Personally, I think that this kind of thing is the mark of a functioning society. When some people have specific needs that don't harm others, there's no reason not to cater to those people. I think we can apply this to a lot of other things, too, that are forbidden mostly due to social taboo rather than actual harm - things like advanced insulins not being available to adults without a prescription, body modification and piercing artists not being allowed to use local anesthesia, and so forth.
The people who have nut allergies, and the people who don't want the people with nut allergies to die, and the people who don't want the people with nut allergies to feel socially excluded, and those that feel some social obligation not to kill the guests at their child's birthday party and a further fuzzy group of people who have other allergies or preferences or care about people who do, or follow some kind of "do unto others" morality is probably quite large.
And the cost of skipping nuts (as he discusses) is fairly minor, even to people who would actively like to kill anyone with nut allergies.
So, how does "dictatorship of the minority" deserve that title?
And how did we get from there, via some name dropping anecdotes, to "western civilization is commiting suicide"?
This article isn't describing a hypothetical future of minority rule; this is how the world works right now, for the most part.
I've never seen parents advocate for peanut bans in real life. It has probably happened but it seems like the "preachy vegan", more of a myth than a reality.
I suspect the real reason many schools have put restrictions in place on peanuts is that it simply makes their job easier. When you have to deal with hundreds of unruly kids it's hard to keep an eye on individuals. Sending kids to the ER is a bad look. Dealing with insurance stuff or lawsuits is a pain. Eliminating a source of headaches and shoving the inconvenience onto the parents is a no-brainer.
Javascript being the lingua franca for all engineers eventually dominated the market. Not because it is a good language, but because everybody spoke it.
Typescript movement can be viewed as vocal minority imposing it's rules over everybody: once you get converted to TS you start hating Javascript. Now, it might mean that TS is just better, period. But another explanation could be that TS is simply viral in the JS environment, similar to Islam being viral in Coptic Egypt.