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.
Maybe. Maybe not. Everyone agrees the Rohingya genocide is “wrong” but no one is willing to lift a finger about it. Even the Pope himself felt he had to tread lightly regarding the matter on his recent visit to Burma/Myanmar.
Myanmar is particularly embarrasing because the west spent decades trying to end the military dictatorship and transfer power to the elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi, but it's turned to genocide almost immediately.
I suspect because they went straight to an extreme position: not all examples of such behavior are genocide, and leading with that strongly tends to derail conversation. Yes, genocide may be a result of that, but so can a lot of other undesirable behaviors that stop far short of it.
If you have a substantive, supporting comment, as you do, please do add it, but leave off the "Not sure why you got downvotes". It doesn't add anything to the discussion and is against the guidelines.
But it’s not inflammatory. The response was “yes it can” which I think is totally valid.
In fact, I’d go one step further and say that maybe the problem is that we don’t spend enough time studying how situations lead to genocide, and therefore we kinda suck at preventing it.
Just my two cents, but that was my rationale for supporting the paren’t statement.
It sounds like we're largely agreeing, and that larger conversation is the one we should be having.
The only quibble I have (and likely those that down voted share it), is that the full comment is "Yes, it can, and then it is called 'genocide'." There's no nuance there. "can" does convey possibility, but that's removed in the second clause.
Pushy minority situations? The thought isn't very constructive. It's one of those odd positions that accepts the premises of people who do very bad things, but decries their lack of restraint, discipline, or compassion.
Not all examples are genocide, but situation tends to boil up to it quickly.
When the minority doesn't like you and you don't like said minority, what would you do? Modern law doesn't have anything that would decrease friction between two groups. I would say that maybe zoning laws do more for that than any other laws.
People tend to underestimate how close they are to genocide. "They are just very bad people", they think when they hear of it, "we are just angels compared to them, and we're incapable of genocide". Bad news that: they aren't that bad, you aren't that good, take your shining armour off, and yes you're never very far.
And one of the reasons they boil up quickly is that people stop engaging in nuanced debate and engaging each other, instead resorting to cheap rhetoric that triggers baser emotions. You've got good stuff here. I encourage you to lead with this rather than the other.
Edit to add: FWIW, that's one of the reasons I take the time to respond to questions like "don't know why...", beyond just pointing out that it's against the guidelines. It takes a little bit of extra effort to take some time to imagine why a reasonable person may have done so and it's important that we do so. And even if I'm wrong (I can't read minds), I've exercised that same behavior I'm trying to encourage.
We have to encourage people to maintain good faith arguments with each other. Discussions on HN are a great example of this: so many ask "why can't we talk about X" and so many of times when a discussion starts about X it devolves when people stop discussing in good faith. The only way we can have those discussions is to remember that other reasonable people may disagree with you. Applying a little effort to thinking about why that may be, and (asking for confirmation if needed) engenders better discourse.
It boils up because people engage in debate instead of doing two things:
* Taking issues to a vote.
* Respecting boundaries of other people.
Debate implies you can change other person's opinion. However, it often tries to talk your way to measures that would never float in a fair voting, or that violate already existing personal or property boundaries.
After a few rounds of debate you're supposed to take it to poll booth. Instead it often turns into name-calling and shouting "nazi" at each other. That kind of discussion should be avoided.
> Modern law doesn't have anything that would decrease friction between two groups
This is where human rights law and anti-hate speech law comes from. Verbal exchanges can make a situation tense, but cutting down the opportunities for escalation allows a peace to be built.
It's also necessary to keep weapons out of politics. Anyone forming a political militia is one incident away from being a terrorist group or death squad. One of the key elements of peace in Northern Ireland was the disarming of the Republican side - and the corresponding de-militarisation of the police.
Anti-hate speech laws can lead to similar effect: first you ban most obvious things, like death threats or racism. Then someone comes up with the idea of banning any criticism of abortion, because it might hurt feelings of women who had it. Then you ban Christmas trees in public schools, because it might hurt feelings of Muslims - the anti-hate laws become more and more prohibitive. Basically, it's a variation of the same problem that I would call: "the most intolerant lawmaker wins".
Then you ban Christmas trees in public schools, because it might hurt feelings of Muslims
Here’s the thing tho’: a good observant Muslim knows perfectly well what a religious holiday is, and recognises Christianity as a fellow Abrahamic religion, and is no more offended by Christmas than if you wished him or her Eid Mubarak.
The only people offended by Christmas are white left-wing atheists, and it is deeply problematic, and racist, how they use Muslims as a scapegoat.
> Then someone comes up with the idea of banning any criticism of abortion, because it might hurt feelings of women who had it. Then you ban Christmas trees in public schools, because it might hurt feelings of Muslims
None of those has actually happened, nor is likely to actually make it through any functioning legal system.
(If you're going hunting for examples of the Christmas tree ban, check your news sources very carefully)
Both of those happened: first is a part of "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union", soon to be required to be implemented by all member states. Second is already happening in the UK, although, I admit, it's not a law, it's case by case basis (by school principals).
You're going to have to give a reliable citation for both of these, especially given the current position on abortion in the Republic of Ireland, and the second one sounds like Daily Mail / Express misleading story.
I don't know of a ban against "_any_ criticism of abortion" or why the "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" is supposedly to blame, but they may be thinking of cases like this:
> This is where human rights law and anti-hate speech law comes from.
How many genocides did the latter ever prevent? If anything, they'll make genocides much more sudden. You can bully the majority into submission but it's going to backfire.
Regarding human rights, I just don't see them working in the century of XXI.
Ah, an impossible-to-prove counterfactual. Better to ask what role hate speech has played in making genoicdes happen, such as in Rwanda (and arguably Myanmar)
Zoning laws?
Perhaps something similar to a system used in South Africa? Didn't seem to decrease friction if you ask me or anyone who has heard of apartheid...
I have talked to a few people recently who migrated from SA to perth Australia.
Considered one of them was telling me stories about white farmers being killed over the last few years and him not feeling safe anymore in the country (hence why he moved to Australia).
I'm not saying apartheid was perfect, just or a morale state. What I would say though is I think it's far too early to say post apartheid was a complete success and didn't end up going down a similar route as zimbabwe.
Apartheid was not a success either though.
And sure post-apartheid isn't pretty yet, but we don't/can't know what SA would look like today if there had never been apartheid.
I don't think anything in South African history would point to segregation being a solution to any social, economic, or political problems.
On the other side of the coin I don't see complete integration as the solution either, unless you race mix the entire country for centuries there is going to be racial conflict it seems in SA.
When it comes to segregation, I don't see why it in itself is bad. Apartheid was a problem because you had a white ruling class oppressing blacks and the problem we are now seeing is the opposite, a black ruling class oppressing whites.
If we were able to split the state in two, couldn't we at least stem some of the racial conflicts? Much harder to opress groups that don't exist within the country.
The first of these factors is not particularly contributory to genocides, or at least the mechanism is mysterious. It reminds me of how people describe US racial problems as "blacks and whites disliking and distrusting each other." A desire for symmetry in genocides is a particularly egregious case, though.
I assume the downvotes are because it describes genocides as cases when the victims were too pushy and the majority were forced to defend themselves, something which you seem to agree with. It was a very common rationalization in at least one major genocide: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pushy+jew&t=lm&ia=web
I'm going to assume by that link you're saying this is a common rationalization of the Holocaust?
Do you have a source for this?
I learned in history classes growing up that conditions in Germany were bleak so the Jewish minority was used as a scapegoat. I've never heard an explanation for the Holocaust that differs greatly from this so I'm curious as to the historical and factual legitimacy behind your seemingly ridiculous claim. Care to back it up?
I personally agree with both of you. The german situation was bleak but I think it would be a misreading of history to think it was that hitler went after the jews simply because the germans were poor.
It seems pretty obvious that they were targeted partly because of their wealth and power across european society. To imagine the jews not being persecuted if they had little money or power is possible, but would require major rewrites of hitler rhetoric and their reasons for going after the jews over other races in particular.
Sure, but saying the Holocaust occurred because the Jewish minority was "too pushy" in the views of the majority is not the same as saying they were a wealthy and powerful elite...
Maybe I read the tone wrong but it seemed like more of an antisemitic comment than I'm used to.
So it looks like people want to know less about genocides and how both sides feel during it.
The assumption here is that you are armed best with rigor and lack of knowledge.
Guess what, it's not helping. You don't have to blame the victim, but you have to understand the criminal's motivation. This way you can at least gauge it against your own.
