On the other hand, letting something like that continue is effectively intolerance of jewish people.
i don't follow you here, allowing intolerant people to say intolerant things about jews does not mean the government is intolerant of jews
You are actually right, and I mispoke. What I probably should have said was something like "letting something like that continue results in intolerance of jewish people" which I believe is a more-or-less accurate statement. By allowing it to continue, you are effectively making the UK (overall) less tolerant of jewish people, but your right, that does not make the government intolerant of jews per se.
The idea that it's anti-semetic to not censor these people is just another application of "if you aren't with us you love terrorism". Apologist logic is a mainstay of the extremist and the authoritarian.
Again from above, I was wrong in what I said, and would like to be a bit clearer. What I should have said should have been closer to "if you have the ability to stop terrorists, and you opt to not, you are permitting terrorism to continue". Keep in mind that that is a very simplistic idea, it's validity would vary greatly depending on the circumstance. "Terrorism" probably isn't the best example of my point however, since the problem and solution were completely out of proportion, whch is why appropriate action (and not any action) is important.
n
Yeah, it's the whole "I don't think you are right for burning the flag, but I'll defend your right to burn it to the death" type of thing.
I personally consider this a bit different. Burning a flag is an abstract expression of opposition to abstract entities such as "the state", as opposed to specifically expressing opposition to the existance of people (based on their ethnicity). I don't have much sympathy for abstract concepts such as "the state", but I do for flesh-and-blood people.
Again, I apologise for what I said about being intolerant by tolerating intolerance. Although I still do hold that there are circumstances where I do believe "intolerant" action can be appropriate, I would also like to add that such action should be taken very cautiously, and only as a last resort, depending on the circumstance. I would also like to point out that discussion about censorship should never be censord, e.g. I am good with censoring child porn, but not censoring any discussion about the censorship of child porn (if that makes sense).
There are no degrees or shades of morality to view-based censorship, as it can and will be exploited for suppression.
This sort of highlights my second point, about the meaning of words. Instead of the word "censorship", you chose the phrase "view-based censorship", to be a bit more descriptive about what you mean.
Author
Topic: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread (Read 1290329 times)