5 ms·

> 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

by orra 1y ago

> 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).

tharmas 1y ago
Its Orwellian.
lambdas 1y ago
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 1y ago
  I dont think it really signifies anything more than there being a rather dim and unimaginative set of authoritarians in charge.
- foldr 1y ago
  Terrorism hasn’t historically been an election issue in the UK, so this seems enormously unlikely.
pmarreck 1y ago
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.
- gregorygoc 1y ago
  It’s basic game theory. If someone is not nice to you, you have to be not nice for them.
  - thefaux 1y ago
    I can't tell if this is serious or not, but I strongly disagree with this advice if it is.
  - zuminator 1y ago
    Are you talking about the tit-for-tat strategy in the Prisoner's Dilemma? That's a particular toy model with an exaggeratedly punitive payoff matrix. But not every daily interaction can be reasonably mapped onto that matrix. A random interaction with a brusque stranger in a queue isn't necessarily going to result in a good outcome for your being rude ('defecting') in a tit-for-tat. If anything it might cause you more stress and embarrassment than if you'd remained mum.
- waterhouse 1y ago
  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."
stavros 1y ago
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 1y ago
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 1y ago
  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-serving-40-of-sentence-to-alleviate-overcrowding-13177051 https://news.sky.com/story/prisoners-to-be-released-after-se...
  - panarchy 1y ago
    The more dangerous people they can get on the street the more fear they can generate and the more they can whip the public to their bidding. Getting rid of the few people trying educate the public on these matters goes hand in hand.
- graemep 1y ago
  > 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 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.

by orra 1y ago

tharmas 1y ago

Its Orwellian.

lambdas 1y ago

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 1y ago
I dont think it really signifies anything more than there being a rather dim and unimaginative set of authoritarians in charge.
foldr 1y ago
Terrorism hasn’t historically been an election issue in the UK, so this seems enormously unlikely.

pmarreck 1y ago

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.

gregorygoc 1y ago
It’s basic game theory. If someone is not nice to you, you have to be not nice for them.
- thefaux 1y ago
  I can't tell if this is serious or not, but I strongly disagree with this advice if it is.
- zuminator 1y ago
  Are you talking about the tit-for-tat strategy in the Prisoner's Dilemma? That's a particular toy model with an exaggeratedly punitive payoff matrix. But not every daily interaction can be reasonably mapped onto that matrix. A random interaction with a brusque stranger in a queue isn't necessarily going to result in a good outcome for your being rude ('defecting') in a tit-for-tat. If anything it might cause you more stress and embarrassment than if you'd remained mum.
waterhouse 1y ago
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."

stavros 1y ago

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 1y ago

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 1y ago
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-serving-40-of-sentence-to-alleviate-overcrowding-13177051 https://news.sky.com/story/prisoners-to-be-released-after-se...
- panarchy 1y ago
  The more dangerous people they can get on the street the more fear they can generate and the more they can whip the public to their bidding. Getting rid of the few people trying educate the public on these matters goes hand in hand.
graemep 1y ago
> 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 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.