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 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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>So, how does "dictatorship of the minority" deserve that title?<p>And how did we get from there, via some name dropping anecdotes, to "western civilization is commiting suicide"?
Couple of examples relevant to tech:<p>Javascript being the lingua franca for all engineers eventually dominated the market. Not because it is a good language, but because everybody spoke it.<p>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 <i>might</i> mean that TS is just better, period. But another explanation <i>could</i> be that TS is simply viral in the JS environment, similar to Islam being viral in Coptic Egypt.