[orra]

> Must be a truly dangerous place...

I don't know if you're awaee, but the number of arrests for terrorism has skyrocketed in recent months, in the UK.

Sounds terrifying, until you realise people were arrested as terrorists for holding placards. (That fact is of course terrifying, but in a chilling way).

[lambdas]

I hope I’m not adding 2 + 2 to get 5, but it’s incredibly convenient that a lot of people are being charged for supporting a proscribed group the same month as the online safety act is rolled out…

The cynic in me almost wonders if when it comes to re-election time, these increased numbers in terrorist charges will be trotted out and the context conveniently forgotten.

[pydry]

I dont think it really signifies anything more than there being a rather dim and unimaginative set of authoritarians in charge.

[foldr]

Terrorism hasn’t historically been an election issue in the UK, so this seems enormously unlikely.

[stavros]

It does sound terrifying that arrests for terrorism have skyrocketed lately, given that I'm pretty sure that it's neither the case that the number of terrorists has skyrocketed lately, nor the ability of the police to catch terrorists.

[kypro]

You forgot to mention those people are holding placards in support of an illegal "terror" group whose objective is to protest the unnecessary human loss of life in Palestine by spray painting British military equipment.

Obligatory legal notice that I obviously do not support said group, but historically terrorists would actually need to commit acts that instil a sense terror in people to further their political objectives. N one I've spoken to feels even remotely terrorised by Palestine Action, and it wouldn't even make sense to be given what they stand for.

I say this as someone who neither supports Palestine Action or shares their concerns.

[fakedang]

Even more chilling when you find out that sentences for previous criminals are being commuted and reduced significantly for heinous crimes (theft, burglary, rape, assault, etc.), so as to clear space and make room in prisons to accommodate these "terrorists".

https://news.sky.com/story/prisoners-to-be-released-after-se...

[graemep]

> spray painting British military equipment.

Spraying paint down military jet engines rendering them inoperable until repaired, at a cos of millions of pounds.

> historically terrorists would actually need to commit acts that instil a sense terror in people to further their political objective

The legal definition of terrorism in the UK has for many years (at least all of the current century, I think a lot longer) included "serious damage to property":

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism

and I think causing many millions of pounds worth of damage is clearly serious.

I do not entirely agree with the definition (I particularly oppose making collecting information and disseminating publications terrorism) but it is what has long been accepted.

[kitd]

Palestinian Action are a sanitised, Westernised front for Hamas fundraising. Their founders have praised the Oct 7th attacks and called for repeats. That by most measures counts as being an active part of terrorism. The spray painting was pretty small in the list of threats they pose.

[arrowsmith]

Palestine Action broke into a British military base and sabotaged millions of pounds' worth of equipment. What did you expect the government to do exactly — shrug it off? What kind of message would that have sent?

The Terrorism Act 2000 gives "serious damage to property" as one definition of terrorism so I find it hard to argue that the government was doing anything more than neutrally applying the law here. Those protestors knew full well they were supporting a proscribed group and they were warned what the consequences would be. Protesting in support of Palestine remains entirely legal in the UK just as long as you don't use the name and branding of this one specific group.

I'll probably regret posting this but there are some extremely disingenuous half-truths in this thread and I think that readers should know the full context.

[mystraline]

> You forgot to mention those people are holding placards in support of an illegal "terror" group whose objective is to protest the unnecessary human loss of life in Palestine by spray painting British military equipment.

Yet more false equivalence.

You can be for Palestine.

You can be for Hamas.

You can be against ethnic cleansing.

You can be against genocide.

These are all different things. And note, this smearing of things like equating 'genocide to Hamas so they deserve it' doesn't make genocide better.

This smearing terms together is also being done by Israel as well, by trying to equate Israel with Judaism, and all Jews across the world. And that any denouncing of actions done in a genocide or ethnic cleansing is somehow antisemitic.

All of these false equivalence arguments are basically just motte-and-bailey fallacies.

[tharmas]

Its Orwellian.

[pmarreck]

It still arguably complies with the Paradox of Tolerance.

Terrorists (as well as their supporters) are intolerant and non-pluralist. Therefore, for a pluralist society to survive, it must be intolerant of one thing- intolerance.

[xg15]

The paradox of tolerance isn't wrong, but it's also invoked awfully quickly in the last years, often by people who weren't tolerant to begin with.

I'd at least like to know who defines who is a "Pluralist" and who is a "Terrorist".

Also: The paradox of tolerance can legitimately be used to call intolerant behaviors of individuals. When you use it to define entire population groups as "intolerant", and therefore not worth of protection, you have joined the side that you ostensibly want to fight against.

[Saline9515]

Who decides who is considered “tolerant” and who isn’t? This idea is ripe for manipulation and will end up producing the opposite of what was intended.

[waterhouse]

To be sure, in the original context of Popper's writing, I believe "intolerant" meant something like "committing violence against others for disagreeing with you", and "tolerate" meant "refrain from intolerance". The full quote is below:

"Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

[graemep]

No, we need to be intolerant of people who threaten others freedom. It does not require preventing them from expressing intolerant views. It means preventing them from actively trying to harm or intimidate others - e.g. making threats, becoming actually violent etc.

[mystraline]

The paradox of tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance not as a moral standard, but as a social contract.

If someone does not abode by the terms of the contract, they are not covered by it.

In other words, the intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance.

Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance will NOT be tolerated.

[HPsquared]

Aka the "fundamental contradiction of liberalism".

[gregorygoc]

It’s basic game theory. If someone is not nice to you, you have to be not nice for them.