The age of minorities

[Gilrandir]

I have encountered a curious article which somehow chimes with what what Fragony said about feeling unsettled with feminists clamoring for their rights. The article is in Russian so I will give the gist.

The author claims that we live in an age when minorities rule the world.
1. Ethnic/national minorities. They demand to be heard and when the majorities agree to grant them the rights and priviliges they ask for they start to ask for more (like Catalonia or Scotland) never knowing where to stop.
2. Sexual minorities. Instead of following their tribal rules and customs they want the majority to pay attention to them and press for privileges that even the majority can't boast of.
3. Religious minorities demand attention on par with major religions.
4. Language minorities. Struggling for the right to speak their own language they want to couple it with the right to ignore the language the majority speaks.
5. Business minorities. A lot of businessmen have lost their profits just because minority shareholders voted against some decisions. Whole corporations have to submit to the will of a single shareholder having only one share.
6. Political minorities. They rule the country because many people abstain from voting so 20% of voters may determine who will head the country.
7. Fashion minorities. Few people dictate to the majority what they will wear.
8. And to crown it all, financial minorities. They are the few oligarchs that rule the world.

The author states that the only solution of this problem that the majorities have come up with is tolerance and patience. But evidently, this kind of solution doesn't work. So he hopes that majorities will somehow find a way to let the minorities hear and respect them as well.

[Montmorency]

The problem is, from the top of the pyramid "equality" looks a lot like a fall.

So is it that "minorities" are asking for too much, or that majorities resist the loss of status?

[spmetla]

Part of it I think is a reaction to globalization. People want to cling to an identity and not just be a mainstream person. Partially it's also sort of the current cult of the oppressed. Nothing to give you cool points like belonging to a group (however minuscule) and claim oppression (sometimes rightfully sometimes not).
While it's important to have a strong sense of personal identity and some pride in ones heritage it often seems to turn into an excuse for us to need to tolerate someone's intolerance.

The "safe space" thing in colleges so people aren't challenged by ideas different from their own is an fine example of its results.

[Fragony]

Clamering to women's right isn't really what upsets me but that isn't really relevant for this thread, just felt like pointing that out

OT, 5 to 8 don't belong in the same list as 1 to 4

[Gilrandir]

So is it that "minorities" are asking for too much, or that majorities resist the loss of status?

Can it be both?

[Montmorency]

Part of it I think is a reaction to globalization. People want to cling to an identity and not just be a mainstream person. Partially it's also sort of the current cult of the oppressed. Nothing to give you cool points like belonging to a group (however minuscule) and claim oppression (sometimes rightfully sometimes not).
While it's important to have a strong sense of personal identity and some pride in ones heritage it often seems to turn into an excuse for us to need to tolerate someone's intolerance.

The "safe space" thing in colleges so people aren't challenged by ideas different from their own is an fine example of its results.

Is it a reaction to globalism per se, or is it that globalism is part of the political environment that allows non-mainstream identities to flourish without violent repression? After all, non-mainstream identities have always existed.

How is a "safe space" different from a club or a lounge?

Can it be both?

Then we're opening up some philosophical questions beyond the question of individuals' comfort. Do you have a framework in mind? It can't just be "weird people know your place."

So you would say it's a bad thing if the majority of democratic voters fear losing political influence to the minority of wealthy people who can buy political influence?

Also, in general, are women really a minority???

Like Fragony said, the second half of the cited list is a matter of increasing undemocratic accumulation of power, while the first half seeks to correct undemocratic accumulation of power. The second half of the list has always had disproportional power. Almost all of post-tribal human history involves the domination of majorities by minorities. We call it "oligarchy".

Gilrandir didn't list women. That's indeed a weakness of the source article, which sounds like it tried to populate everything into its "minorities" thesis - to the point of listing the fashion industry.

[Greyblades]

Problem occurs when minorities are allowed privileges: extra consideration in education and workplace, social pressure to silence any criticism, exceptions in the law for foriegn practices.

There are the selfish and psychopathic in every denomination of humanity and all efforts of appeasement will inevitably accrue abuse. Our ability to counter such abuses so far have been curtailed by the very same that demanded the priveledges to begin with.

[Gilrandir]

2. Generally most would like to be left alone and live their life in peace.

This one is about sexual minorities, right? So holding pride parades has the aim of being left alone? To my mind, such public demonstrations carry the message "we are fun, join us".

Then we're opening up some philosophical questions beyond the question of individuals' comfort. Do you have a framework in mind? It can't just be "weird people know your place."

The whole thread has a rather philosophical bias without which one can't answer the question "Do we live in the age of minorities?"

Gilrandir didn't list women. That's indeed a weakness of the source article, which sounds like it tried to populate everything into its "minorities" thesis - to the point of listing the fashion industry.

First of all, I didn't list women because the source article didn't.
Second of all, if the author of the said article didn't hence he doesn't consider them a minority. And he is right. Statistically speaking, they are a majority.

Problem occurs when minorities are allowed privileges: extra consideration in education and workplace, social pressure to silence any criticism, exceptions in the law for foriegn practices.

Probably, this was the aim of the article I quoted. And this arises a question: should minorities receive any legal privileges - a stipulated percentage of employees, students, MPs and so on?

[Husar]

The problem is, from the top of the pyramid "equality" looks a lot like a fall.

So is it that "minorities" are asking for too much, or that majorities resist the loss of status?

So you would say it's a bad thing if the majority of democratic voters fear losing political influence to the minority of wealthy people who can buy political influence?

Also, in general, are women really a minority???

[rory_20_uk]

1. In most cases they want the repression and cultural assimilation to stop. Scotland joined England in a marriage of convenience - they wanted money.
2. Generally most would like to be left alone and live their life in peace.
3. Many are asking not to be oppressed or wiped out.
4. I have slightly more sympathy for this one.
5. Minority shareholders can be unilaterally bought out. Activist shareholders are generally multi millionaires who own vast numbers of shares and are in for a smash and grab.
6. Called democracy. The votes get the power.
7. Nope.
8. Probably the case. But and...?