Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZeroGravitas | Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

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.

So, how does "dictatorship of the minority" deserve that title?

And how did we get from there, via some name dropping anecdotes, to "western civilization is commiting suicide"?

View on HN

I've seen some epic flame wars over the peanut restrictions in schools. They tend to catch my eye since one of my kids has a peanut allergy. People assume that these rules are created by pearl clutching "concerned parents".

I've never seen parents advocate for peanut bans in real life. It has probably happened but it seems like the "preachy vegan", more of a myth than a reality.

I suspect the real reason many schools have put restrictions in place on peanuts is that it simply makes their job easier. When you have to deal with hundreds of unruly kids it's hard to keep an eye on individuals. Sending kids to the ER is a bad look. Dealing with insurance stuff or lawsuits is a pain. Eliminating a source of headaches and shoving the inconvenience onto the parents is a no-brainer.

Well then you have to skip the nuts. And the seashells. And the milk. And everything containing gluten. And probably eggs. And whatever else people can have allergies to. Gonna be an interesting diet.

But we actually _do_ accommodate those allergies. I know someone with severe peanut, tree nut, and milk allergies. I spend lots of time with her, and yet I can still drink milkshakes and eat Reese's Cups. The idea that accommodating someone means utterly restricting everyone else's freedom is, frankly, ridiculous.

But yes that's the point, we do this on a case-by-case basis, after communicating, not generally because someone could show up and be allergic to nuts. Making a lemonade kosher is a no-brainer, so there's no problem with doing it. But if I had to go out of my way to find food with peanuts because we want to be safe by default, I'd have a problem with that.

Yeah, completely agreed. But the reason you don't have to go out of your way is because the majority does care about that.

This article isn't describing a hypothetical future of minority rule; this is how the world works right now, for the most part.

I was reading the comment I replied to like that, but on a second read it doesn't suggest that so much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com