Saying E comes after B doesn't mean inevitably B leads to E. And it seems likely the employee wanted to make a point about the level the company was at or the next level up. Not the top of the pyramid.

The employee putting up that pyramid didn't appear to have the outcome they wanted. It turned into much more. This should be a lesson learned.

I've read a fair number of books on helping things through change. The pyramid being put where it was seemed like a bad idea the moment I read it. The way it was responded to is something I would have expected.

There is a lesson here. If you want to bring about change in others it's about leading them rather than saying what you want to say.

It depends. Did Hansson read what the employee wrote? Or did he glance at the diagram and react to 1 word? Hansson's reputation and how he handled this situation make me think something would have set him off inevitably.

It says you're at the first step along the path to genocide. Whether or not it is inevitable is irrelevant to where the path leads.

No. It's saying that allowing any lower level of the pyramid to exist and pervade allows for further levels to be built up. Whereas if that lower level doesn't exist, it's less likely that other forms of hate will develop and subvert society. It's the frog boiling in the water. It's a cautionary tale to know when the water is heating up and how to stop it.

I agree with your assessment. That is exactly why I stated that the overt message of the Pyramid of Hate is that laughing at funny names leads to genocide, because "allowing any lower levels of the pyramid to exist and pervade allows for further levels to be built up". Not sure what the disagreement is tbh.

> It is hard to argue that showing the pyramid of hate doesn't imply that laughing at names leads to genocide.

I don't find it challenging to make that argument at all.

"Laughing at names leads to genocide" to me implies that laughing at names is a necessary and sufficient condition to a genocide.

The pyramid of hate, to me, implies that laughing at names is a necessary but not sufficient condition of genocide.

Therefore showing the pyramid of hate does not imply that laughing at names leads to genocide, as it lacks the sufficiency condition.

Not so hard to argue.

That would be a good argument if the statement was that "laughing at names leads inevitably to genocide."