94
Prominent Canadian activist and author arrested for pro-Palestinian activism
(www.middleeasteye.net)
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2025
94 points (95.2% liked)
News
35774 readers
2056 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Doesn't change anything. From one perspective no crime was committed because nobody was being intolerant, but from another perspective someone was.
You can apply it to many statements, like "There should be no state in the Middle East for Jews"
That could be intolerant or maybe not.
Intolerance, in itself, is not a matter of perspective. It's a clear criteria.
That doesn't mean we can always clearly determine what speech is or is not intolerant. It often relies on gauging intent, which is difficult to do. The example you cited would be a judgement call for the courts; it very likely does not cross the line into intolerant speech, but if you could clearly demonstrate antisemitic intent on the part of the author, which would require other overtly antisemitic statements or actions, then you might be able to prove a case.
And this is nothing new. The law juggles questions of intent all the time. In cases of doubt, we err on the side of innocence. This is all very well trod territory. Why is it acceptable to assess the question of intent when judging between murder and manslaughter, but suddenly that becomes an unacceptable complication when we're talking about what is or isn't hate speech?
How is it a clear criteria? You haven't defined what you mean by intolerance
From one of my previous comments in this exact conversation:
In other words, we don't defend the right of Nazis to be Nazis because ultimately their goal is to strip rights and freedoms away from other people. Even if they're not out in the streets lynching black people and Jews, they are actively working towards destroying the place our tolerant society holds for people who are different from them. Extending tolerance to their speech leads to less tolerance in society as a whole.
Conversely, we do not treat Pride parades as intolerant speech, no matter how offensive they are to Nazis, because their goal is not to reduce the tolerance of tolerant people. Nazis don't get to be protected from other people's intolerance of them - they don't get to cry foul when someone says "Punch Nazis" - because their feelings of offence stem from their intolerance, and the intolerance others have towards them is a reaction to their intolerance.
In other words, if Nazis didn't believe in a hateful ideology, no one would hate them. Whereas Nazis will hate black people no matter what black people do or don't do.
You can't define intolerance by defining tolerance as being intolerant of intolerance. You just made a loop
Tolerance is by its nature defined as the inverse of intolerance, and vice versa. That's what the "in" at the start of "intolerance" means. They are each defined as the negation of the other.
A tolerant society is one that believes all people have a fundamental right to exist and live freely. It's really that simple. Intolerance is therefore that belief that some people do not have a fundamental right to exist and live freely.
Yes, I understand that part, I'm saying you first need to first define tolerance to negate it.
By your definition, in a tolerant society I have the right to exercise free speech. I'm not shielded from consequences of my actions, for example if it's libel. I can say anything I want about your business, but it is not true and it causes damages I'm liable for the damages.
By saying I don't have the right to express my political opinions you're being intolerant by your definition since you don't believe I should be able to live free, correct?
Yes, that is correct. Hence the "Paradox" in the "Paradox of tolerance."
Paradoxically it is necessary that a tolerant society be intolerant of one thing and one thing only; intolerance.