"The most intolerant wins: the dictatorship of the small minority."
It is a fairly substantial and wide-ranging examination of the ways in which in both a free market, and an open society, a very small but courageous and highly determined minority can survive, grow, and indeed cause much larger groups to dance to their tune.
The basic mechanism described in the article is that if a highly committed group insists on making one particular choice - only eating Kosher food for instance - while the rest of society does not mind which way they chose - for example. very few non-Jews mind whether their food is Kosher or not - it may be simpler for suppliers and administrators or governments to provide everyone with what the highly committed group wants (It's not worth the bother of producing the non-Kosher version of some drinks or foodstuffs.)
Sometimes the impacts of this can be good, sometimes then can be worrying.
It is an interesting article which deserves a lot of thought, and makes a stronger case than I like for the view that "The West is currently in the process of committing suicide."
This point relates to the paradox of to what extent tolerant society can afford to tolerate those who are intolerant.
Let me quote the relevant passage.
I'm going to have to think very hard about ...the implications of this. You cannot establish a tolerant society in the first place without being willing to extend the hand of tolerance to those who may not previously have shown tolerance.
But what happened to the Weimar Republic proves that tolerance for the intolerant cannot be unlimited. The author of the article suggests that we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities. While I do not think we have yet reached the point where the destruction of democracy and tolerance by the intolerant minority is inevitable or even probable, the danger needs to be addressed.
He also has a wonderful sense of humour and does not care who he teases, hence the article includes the line,
"Purely monotheistic religious such as Protestant Christianity, Salafi Islam, or fundamentalist atheism accommodate literalist and mediocre minds that cannot handle ambiguity."
(Incidentally, his own principle of asymmetric effects provides the riposte to that point - it is also possible for great minds and those which can handle ambiguity to accommodate themselves to all three of those positions and many others.)