> 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).

Its Orwellian.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

You can define who is tolerant and who is not literally from the definition of the word. It's not a problem.

> When you use it to define entire population groups as "intolerant"

There are suitable cases, eg. if you are in jihad or other extremist sect where part of ideology is intolerance

"Sovereign is he who decides on the exception."

Exceptions are hypocrisy, by definition.

If you need exceptions, abandon the rule, because it is no longer a rule, it is just a discriminatingly applied proscription.

> 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.

Suppose there was an organization that had written by-laws which were not permitted to be changed but which demanded adherence (on pain of death), including never leaving the organization. Also suppose that most of the members of that organization collectively decided not to adhere to all of its rules (some were considered incompatible with "progress")... but some continued to. And others sometimes began to, but only under stress, because the by-laws book (which, again, cannot be changed, on pain of death) made NO clarification on scope of application, and people were free to interpret the by-laws literally.

Why would you not judge that organization, given that its by-laws are its core? Why would you make special exceptions for ANY organization (or its members), here?

I mean, objectively-speaking, if we weren't reflexively defending the org we're of course discussing, it sounds like a dystopian science-fiction novel. (If I'm being honest, it sounds A LOT like Warhammer, actually.)

Here's a fun thing to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

"With few exceptions, Islamic revelations do not state which Quranic verses or hadith have been abrogated, and Muslim exegetes and jurists have disagreed over which and how many hadith and verses of the Quran are recognized as abrogated, with estimates varying from less than ten to over 500."

Also note that naskh tends to recognize later passages as overriding earlier passages. Guess which ones are the more violent ones...

See a problem, yet? Please don't gaslight me into not seeing one.

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."

> 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;

Sounds like speech suppression with force because (later in the quote) the speech may later give way to force. If he was only talking about force in response to force it wouldn't be considered a paradox I don't think. This quote hasn't dispeled popular characterizations of his stance for me, it seems in line with what most people say he's saying.

As you say, it's because the speech may later give way to force. It does go farther than American free speech law permits: the latter draws the line at something like "threats of immediate criminal action", whereas this would attack "propagating ideologies that one thinks will eventually lead the followers to criminal action". There are certainly deep problems with potential implementation here: e.g. the main American political parties would probably both accuse each other's ideology of eventually leading the followers to criminal action. One would want high standards for that (of, say, what percentage engage in what magnitude of criminal action; as well as evidentiary standards), and want it to be established in a mega-trial, or by a supermajority of Congress declaring war on an ideology; and even that might not be enough. I'm not necessarily in favor of Popper's approach, except in emergencies.

However, I think that, when most people use the word "intolerance" today, they include things like speaking racial slurs or expressing any negative emotion towards a demographic group. There are contexts in which these things are done, and manners in which they are done, in which, yes, they do give a significant signal that the speaker is the type who would cheerfully escalate to aggressive violence towards the targeted group; but also contexts and manners in which they do not give such a signal.

I think there is a distinction to be drawn here, between "always tracking whether this is likely to escalate to criminal action" and "just attacking anyone who vaguely resembles a known 'intolerant' group". The latter is essentially an autoimmune disorder, which has led to massive collateral damage and its own discrediting. The former ... has a danger of turning into the latter, certainly (which has an interestingly meta angle to it), but is there any version of it that is well-protected against that fate? I expect there's room for improvement compared to earlier versions. I don't know if it can be done well enough to be worthwhile.

I think we can have stronger protections in the US, while keeping it within existing frameworks. Why is it constitutionally ok to give mega corporations strong protections against slander backed by the state who will enforce the ruling, but protection of ethnic groups from slander is constitutionally off limits? It doesn't follow from the constitution.

Huh? Have you even read the Constitution? This has nothing to do with slander.

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

I can't tell if this is serious or not, but I strongly disagree with this advice if it is.

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.

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.

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.

Aka the "fundamental contradiction of liberalism".

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

> 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.

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.

Personally I expected prosecutions for sabotage rather than for terrorism.

The UK has very broad terrorism legislation, but conventionally terrorism is something directed at civilians, and it's not something we usually tar, for example, resistance groups with.

I think you even have to be able to kill people in internal political conflict without being called a terrorist. There are many circumstances during which such things are necessary.

FWIW the specific activists who entered the base were charged with "conspiracy to commit criminal damage" and "conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK", not terrorism. [0]

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dp5158720o

Yes, but then the organization was proscribed as a terrorist organization.

There's no legal mechanism to ban/proscribe a group in the UK except under terrorism legislation: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/for-what-reasons-other-than...

If the government wants to shut this group down (which I think is a reasonable response to an attack on our military) then I'm not sure what other options were available to them. And like I said, what they did seems to meet the legal definition of terrorism (regardless of whether that definition is a good one.)

Of all the arguments we could be having about Palestine, I'm really not going to shed any tears for Palestine Action.

But I'm not here to get lost in the weeds, I just objected to the misleading half-truths that were being presented above. Most people reading this don't follow UK news closely and might come away with the impression that the government is banning pro-Palestine protest entirely, or is making it illegal to merely "hold placards". That's an outrageous distortion, and it hardly helps the pro-Palestine cause. I couldn't let it slide.

Here in Sweden what organizations are engaged in terrorism is up the courts and the government has no right to intervene at all to proscribe a group, with EU and other political terrorism designations being irrelevant.

Furthermore, I think that there is a duty, if one suspects that a capability is or may be used to aid genocide, to destroy that capability. Hopefully Palestine Action are incorrect, and targeting assets that have not been used to aid genocide or otherwise make it easier, but if they are right and the UK have actually aided genocide, then they have done too little violence.

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.

> 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.

You can be for Hamas?

I'm not, but I know those who are.

Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. Last elections too. For quite many, Hamas are freedom fighters defending against invaders.

Hamas won that election in large part by throwing their opponents off the tops of buildings, and then, having secured power in Gaza, never allowed another election, to the point where a plurality of Gazan Palestinians are not old enough ever to have participated in an election. Anyone calling Hamas "freedom fighters" is telling on themselves. No, I don't think you can reasonably be for Hamas.

I don't have anything else to nitpick about your comment! Just that one thing you said stuck out, because, no; being for Hamas is like being for the Khmer Rouge. Like, yeah, western imperialism in Indochina was absolutely a thing at the time of the Khmer Rouge. But no, you don't get to be for the Khmer Rouge!

("Last elections too"? What did you mean by that?)

The CCTV cameras I've never really had a problem with - despite what TV shows and films would like to tell you they're not actually a single coherent CCTV network, a vast proportion of them are operated by random shopkeepers, private home owners, and other such places. If they want footage from them the police are typically going to have to send someone out to ask for it, and then hope they haven't reused the storage already.

This sort of thing, deploying facial recognition systems in the street in the hope of finding someone, is much more insidious. Technically you can choose to bypass it, or pull something over your face, but that's more or less guaranteeing that you'll be stopped and questioned as to why you're concerned about it.

Sadly the UK never met an authoritarian they didn't like (apart from Hitler, so long as you're not as bad as Hitler himself you're good though). When surveyed the British public will call for banning basically anything they don't like, even if it doesn't impact them at all.

There's no small irony that facial recognition isn't going to recognise the faces of those currently racing around on e-bikes stealing phones wearing their 'safety balaclavas'. Or, indeed, some of the more militant protesters that are turning up all over the place. It's a cliche, but if you have nothing to hide, and intend to protest peacefully, why are you covering your face?

>if you have nothing to hide

But it's not you that decides that what you are doing is harmless. It's what the authorities decide; and that can be quite different from what you or other people deem "nothing to hide".

> It's a cliche, but if you have nothing to hide, and intend to protest peacefully, why are you covering your face?

because who says the state (and the people acting for it, e.g. police) are always the good guys

there is a VERY long history of people being systematically harassed and persecuted for things which really shouldn't be an issue, and might not have been illegal either (but then the moment a state becomes the bad guy "illegal" loses meaning as doing the ethical right thing might now be illegal)

like just looking at the UK, they e.g. "thanked" Alan Turing for his war contributions by driving him into Suicide because he was gay

or how people through history have been frequently harassed for "just" not agreeing with the currently political fraction in power, and I really mean just not agreeing not trying to do anything to change it

and even if we ignore systematic stuff like that there has been also more then just a few cases of police officers abusing their power. Including cases like them stalking people, or them giving the address of people to radical groups, or blackmailing them for doing stuff which is legal but not publicly well perceived. (E.g. someone had sex with their wife on a balcony not visible from the street but visible from a surveillance camera).

And even if nothing of this applies to you, if there is no privacy and mass surveillance this can also help people in power to frame you for something you didn't do. Like e.g. to make you lose your job so their brother in law can get it instead.

and even ignoring all that you should have a right for privacy and since when is it okay to harass people which just want to defend their rights?

anyway if you think is through "I have nothing to hide" is such a ridiculous dump argument.

> like just looking at the UK, they e.g. "thanked" Alan Turing for his war contributions by driving him into Suicide because he was gay

Well. Maybe[0].

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092

Wow, never heard this version. Fascinating.

Just because there is a chance he did not kill himself, that does not negate the fact that homosexuality was illegal, and that the state expended resources to prosecute him! British people now overwhelmingly see such policies as reprehensible, regardless of who might or might not have considered suicide because of them.

You're countering things I didn't say.

I'm thinking it through, and I've arrived at the puzzling conclusion we shouldn't make it too hard for people to break the law.

Isn't that precisely the point. If there are so many laws that are so easily broken, you have a reason to pickup anyone of interest at any time.

Eh, I see what I wrote was ambiguous. I meant "not hard to defy the law", you're on "not hard to be tripped up by the law".

Same jail

Not so puzzling; see also this classic post from Moxie Marlinspike, founder of Signal: https://moxie.org/2013/06/12/we-should-all-have-something-to...

> Over the past year, there have been a number of headline-grabbing legal changes in the US, such as the legalization of marijuana in CO and WA, as well as the legalization of same-sex marriage in a growing number of US states.

> As a majority of people in these states apparently favor these changes, advocates for the US democratic process cite these legal victories as examples of how the system can provide real freedoms to those who engage with it through lawful means. And it’s true, the bills did pass.

> What’s often overlooked, however, is that these legal victories would probably not have been possible without the ability to break the law.

The optimal amount of fraud or lawlessness isn't zero.

You're mixing your definitions of authoritarian, there's authoritarian in the 'Nolan chart' sense of the word, which just means 'not a Libertarian', which is like 98% of people, which is different to the Hitler meaning of authoritarian, which means 'rejecting democracy'. If the people agree to ban things they don't like, that's democracy, so it's the Nolan kind of authoritarian but not the Hitler kind of authoritarian. Deciding the people shouldn't be allowed to agree collectively to ban certain things is rejecting democracy, so it's Hitler authoritarian but not Nolan authoritarian.

I don't think this is true. Apparently the operation of a large majority of those private cameras is in fact outsourced to a handful of big security companies, and many of them are remotely operated. This makes getting access to private cameras a lot easier for police than you think.

If you've ever had to deal with the UK police as a victim of a crime, you'll quickly find out they're pretty useless at obtaining CCTV footage. I was asked to get it myself, to which the business who owned the CCTV told me they would only hand it to the police, so nothing happened.

> despite what TV shows and films would like to tell you they're not actually a single coherent CCTV network

Isn't that the CC in CCTV? Closed circuit implies that it's restricted to an on prem network

>* The UK has had an insane number of CCTV cameras for as long as I can remember.*

Per-capita it’s less than the US.

But with the smaller space for the population, it's nearly total coverage from multiple angles vs the wide distances separating the equivalent number of cameras in the US.

And generally people speak about London specifically and not about rural UK areas.

The original figure included private CCTV systems which to all intents and purposes aren't available to government bodies without a warrant.

Judge Dredd was an 80s reaction to this ethos. It’s old.

The fact the UK police deploy teams with cameras to record crime is really not the dystopian hellscape Fitwatch like to make out it is.

> The UK has had an insane number of CCTV cameras for as long as I can remember.

By the way, do anybody care what would happen (at least psychologically) in case of a massive blackout or cyber-incident?

Just imagine something akin to what happened to the Iberian peninsula a few months ago, the country goes into flame quickly preventing recovery and then it's on. Most of the systems the UK has to control its population are inoperable.

I am pretty sure it is in the back of the mind of the UK leaders when they negotiate with Russia and China....

You think it would turn into an impromptu de facto purge (of The Purge fame)?