[emsy]

I see where you're coming from but I disagree with the argument, because it only holds up under the assumption that they acted this way mainly to preserve the group identity. The simpler explanation is that the group made a democratic choice and she was unhappy with thre result.

[asQuirreL]

You are right, it is just democracy at work, but I'm not sure that that is different from a group trying preserve its identity.

The interesting thing is that most people assume that democracy is inclusive, because everybody has a voice, but in this case, the inclusive thing to do would have been to watch something that only one person wanted to watch, to make them as a minority, comfortable, whereas the democratic thing to do is to ignore the opinion of the minority as not relevant to the views of the group.

Where the discussion becomes difficult, I guess, is when the dividing line between majority and minority coincides with that of privileged (PS. I hate what this word has come to mean) and unprivileged.

[emsy]

I agree with you on this. My point was that we should be charitable in our judgement of the group, especially if we lack other perspectives. Someone from the group might say she always wanted to get her will and alienated herself. We can't know. That's the problem with anecdotes.

Regardless, a small group of people has more room for compromise than a democratic state, and as I said, I don't condone the way these kind of situations are usually handled.