The core insight here, while interesting, ended up being much more generic than I was expecting it to be after the initial examples. It seems to boil down to "There exist mechanisms by which a small group can either grow to dominate a larger group, or have their behavioral norms spread to outside of their group, or otherwise punch above their weight. These mechanisms involve a rule or circumstance that is asymmetric."<p>It is an interesting principle, and useful to keep in mind, but I do not think it really supports all of the points he makes with it, or justify some of the language used. For example, I do not think that all drinks being Kosher, or a high prevalence of halal butcher shops, merit being described as "dictatorships". In the examples that would merit such strong language, such as the possibility of an anti-democratic religion dominating a democratic society and culture, I do not think that the Power of Asymmetry Principle leads where he tries to go. Specifically, he says that we need to be "more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities". However, if we examine the situation while keeping the power of asymmetry in mind, all we need to do is look for the asymmetry that would give this group its power, and take that away. In this case, the ability to use violence to enforce religious rules, specifically the death penalty for apostasy. Without the threat of violence, fundamentalist Islam would look much more like fundamentalist Christianity, trying (with various levels of success) to enforce its norms through political and interpersonal channels, but far from an unstoppable juggernaut.