It doesn't have to be most of them, it only has to be enough

Post Reply New Topic

Does it make you sigh when someone just has to say "But not all of them are/most of them aren't like that!" whenever you're ranting about a certain group? Well it doesn't have to be the majority of them, there only has to be enough of them. Only 10% of cops might be a**holes, but that means 1 out of every 10 cop you run into will be a**holes and that's still pretty common.

This is what I call a significant minority. It's exactly what political correctness fails to address and what knee jerk generalizations blow out of proportion. Not that I find them both equally annoying since political correctness actually gets on my nerves more, but it's a false dichotomy that leaves this concept out altogether.

Now that I realize this, it has presented a lot of mind blowing implications. I used to think the majority of people are stupid a**holes, but now I realize that only a significant minority of them are and most people are actually not that hard to get along with.

Here's another concept; the significant division. The "masses" are too divided to be a unified majority, so it is the most significant division within the masses that has the most leverage among the masses.

I used to think it was the masses that grant power to the elite minority, but now it seems that it is the most significant division within the masses that grant them power. So it is neither the elite minority intimidating everyone else into bending over nor the "masses" granting power to the elite minority. Anyways I'm not totally satisfied with this explanation and there's more I'd like to add or clarify on, but I'll leave it at that for now.

PS: I'm not saying "elite minority" in a condescending way, but in a neutral way. Power hunger exists among people of all classes and social status. This isn't meant to criticize capitalism, but to try to gain insight into the dynamics of power. Besides the fact that I have views favouring capitalism, I'm not just talking socioeconomic status but status within society in general.

your line of reasoning does not seem all to clear. on one hand you seem to be saying that because a minority within some minority group rubs you up the wrong way that you should therefore be able to say "******* group are guilty of ********".

this sort of faulty logic is what leads to statements like "islamic extremists are trying to take over europe" or "jews are trying to take over the world".

police is a bad example to cite, since there are many people who dislike them on ideological grounds regardless of personal character traits.

so surely you'd be better just thinking "i dislike people who do ********" regardless of what "minority group" you'd look to be lumping them in with?

Nope, not what I'm saying at all. Matter of fact you missed the point big time when you're saying this should somehow allow people to say "This group is guilty of that" because that's a generalization, which is exactly what the topic is going against. The group could have a significant minority that is guilty of having a certain trait, but to include the whole group is generalizing.

This faulty logic comes from knee jerk generalizations. Islamic extremists aren't a significant minority, but a vast minority. However, Islamic extremists have still been responsible for the majority of terrorist attacks in the last few decades so I don't dig all the false equivalencies between them and Christian extremists. Is this phenomenon because of their religion or strictly because of the rampant political instability in the middle east? I don't know. As for Jews trying to take over the world, what does this have to do with the whole concept of significant minorities? That's just some stupid Neo-Nazi conspiracy theory. There's evidence of Islamic extremism, but there's no evidence of Jews pulling the strings on every powerful leader.

True, but the topic is about the concept of significant minorities, not whether you hate the way an organization conducts itself or only a few people who make the organization look bad.

No, the term "significant minority" refers to a minority within a group. That group itself doesn't have to be a minority because that isn't the point.

but in that case, why bother considering what group the individuals concerned are part of at all? i'm sure the trait in question could be detected in a minority of at least more than one, if not most groups.












but are you saying that significant minorities of certain groups have negative traits that cannot be found among significant minorities of other groups?






ok, but again, why bother looking to pinpoint them as a significant minority of a particular group, unless of course you are claiming that the negative trait in question is found only among this group? and if so, can you cite some examples other than police? because even in your example, people we might consider "a**holes" or however you put it, whether a significant minority of police can be considered such, exist among other groups, and across the population as a whole.

i suppose what i am saying is i don't really understand your reasoning at all. it seems to me like a rather insignificant distinction you are making.