> Only to suddenly adopt authoritarian, anti-free speech, anti-human rights, and anti-protest stances the moment free speech began to critique Israel.
It's not sudden. The West's hate speech laws have been coming for ages. Anyone silly enough to put that much enforcement over speech into play cannot now complain that it's being used against people they like.
This US-centric take blatantly fails to address all of the problems, the right-wing ideologies, which have easily had a much greater impact on the rise of fascism across the world.
And to be clear, US liberalism is largely supportive of right-wing ideology, the US Democratic party would be considered a right-wing party in many other countries. So it's both parties who are to blame here, but the underlying authoritarian fascist current is decidedly right-wing politics
This was nothing to do with the US. I was actually thinking about the UK's laws when I wrote it.
I'm trying to talk ideas; your post is riddled with just identifying which team is the goodies and the baddies. I don't think there's much common ground to be had between discussing ideas vs tribalism.
Yes, you were thinking of the UK's laws, but from the perspective of the US Constitution. There's an implicit tribalism in your own post where you assume without contest that the US' definition of free speech is the only one that can possibly have merit.
Just occurred to me, before the free internet both dissemination of opinions and access was restricted. Now we have unprecedented access, and there are obvious strains and regression. Makes you wonder what we missed from the times before the internet.
To be sure, this legislation sounds draconian: “This expansive framing blurs the line between political dissent and subversive threat. Intent becomes a political judgement, inferred from beliefs, causes and associations rather than conduct.”
It's stretching all the way back to 2020. It isn't something new. It isn't just the government you need to be most worried about silencing you now, as other institutions wield equally great power.
I agree with the sentiment, I’d probably phrase it slightly more politely as “people who use this always seem to believe they are the ‘strong men’ and other are the weak”
And those that hate the quote are the “strong men”? Given the many complaints about it, instead of trying to read between the lines about history being proved time and time again to be cyclical, I wouldn’t be so sure.
The responses, ranging from political partisanship, ad hominem, to being offended by the choice of words, are certainly a sign of the times.
It's a protofascist phrase, part of the problems we have is people adopting this worldview, that life has to be hard in order to create "good men". It's used to defend rightwing social darwinism.
If anything, history goes the other way around. Fascism ("strong men") comes from good times, as a reaction. They create authoritarianism and discrimination ("bad times"), which slowly liberalizes and equalizes (gives rise to "weak men"). This makes situation better until another fascist takeover.
How exactly did you get to the conclusion that fascism needs "strong men"? The current US regime has nothing but the weakest, most fearful men clutching to power. You really think that Trump's call to execute senator Kelly comes from a position of strength? Your current bad times came from a few decades of weak men letting their fear and hatred (and greed) guide their vote -- strong men had very little to do with it.
Anyway, the quoted saying is not about any specific ideology, that's just your own projection. Here's the cycle reformulated without any specific ideology:
Hard times create strong men: hardship breeds discipline
Strong men create good times: discipline breeds prosperity
Good times create weak men: prosperity breeds complacency
weak men create hard times: complacency leads to hardship
"How exactly did you get to the conclusion that fascism needs "strong men"?"
Fascists (and protofascist advocates of social darwinism) do think that! Whether they actually are or not "strong men" (what does it even mean?) is immaterial to that saying.
I disagree with the saying. Even your formulation. Hardship doesn't breed discipline, and prosperity doesn't lead to complacency. There are many disciplined people who have good and prosperous life, and also, why is being disciplined more important than good life? It's authoritarian and backwards.
For example, being homeless (hardship) doesn't make one disciplined. Most likely, it will make one into an alcoholic.
Hardship is horrible and we should universally reject it.
If this obnoxious and seemingly ubiquitous platitude were actually true, then torture would be a moral duty. Enforced poverty would be a moral duty. Governments would be obligated to regularly arrange mass starvations for their citizens.
I don't believe it. Personally, I think spiritual weakness and religious corruption are more likely culprits -- and not necessarily the type of spirituality or religion that you might be thinking of.
Either way, "good times" is a dangerous place to put the blame. It relieves us of responsibility for our own catastrophes (it was the good times' fault), and it makes us suspicious of prosperity and happiness.
Good times are not evil. We don't need to shun them, provided we keep strengthening the better angels of our nature.
As strongly as many of us are on a particular side, the latest battleground for and against material support for overseas belligerent fascism is just a lightning rod for a deeper struggle.
While most of the individual members of the state are just rallying around the flag, the core ideological group inside the state has the belief that the public must never be allowed to dictate the choice of geopolitical ingroup and outgroup. The repression they are enacting isn't about lsreaI per se, it's about the principle of the thing.
It was coming anyway, and it could have been any event that triggered it. The right event at the right time?
But as others here mention, the powers that be are unhappy that the population isn't siding with their position. The government is fine with dissent against Russia because they are "the enemy" in the narrative.
Not to say there hasn’t been creeping authoritarianism, growing mass surveillance, etc. for the last few decades, but it has seemed that this one issue has stood out as utterly unique, especially in the UK in that there was basically bipartisan accord from those in power across all the mainstream political views, and the only “allowed” position from them was uncritical support for that country’s Government and their military actions.
At the same time, there seemed to be a much larger group of people in the normal population who disagreed with those in power than most other issues (when at least some representatives in a major party might roughly align with the people)
Attack is a strong word for throwing a can of paint.
After the 2024 riots there were mass arrests and prosecution, but only talk about reviewing groups as to whether they should be proscribed.
Why does a member throwing a can of paint get you classed as a terrorist organisation, while organising riots that involve throwing molotov's and causing serious injury not?
Besides, why not prosecute them for their actions, why proscribe the organisation as a terrorist one, while at the same time ignoring groups who commit much more violent offenses (such as the one given) and concentrate on prosecuting "personal responsibility"?
Graham Linehan is an example of nothing other than how to tank your marriage, friendships, and any semblance of a professional career over a misguided moral crusade.
He was a well-known and liked figure in Ireland off the back of Father Ted, Black Books and the IT Crowd. He was a huge blogger and early presence on Twitter, with both him and his wife being public feminists and supporters.
He was also - and this is the important bit - a public advocate and supporter for the pro-choice position in our abortion referendum, which gave him some sense of intellectual and moral security in his heartfelt positions, as well as a huge fanbase.
Unfortunately some of his previous advocacies evolved into TERFs, and he with them. This then became a mono-crusade under the guise of standing up for the women in his life and women in general. Slowly but surely his fanbase, his professional connections, and society at large fell out of step with him.
As his antics became more extreme and problematic in their optics, his friends, his family, and his Wife begged him year after year to stop sabotaging his own existence before eventually having to leave him.
He's dug down so far at this point that he's being courted by Joe Rogan, which is probably the saddest bit of this entire story.
The interviewer is clearly sympathetic to Mr Linehan and their personal views are not opposed.
But nonetheless they end up thinking "I tried to understand why I couldn’t get through, why the piece I’d wanted to write for years would be a failure" - because the guy is an obsessive, unwell crank, that's all. It is a sad story.
The UK Supreme Court ruling went out of its way to say that it wasn't vindicating any such position, saying:
It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”). (Para 2)
and
The court also concluded that a biological sex interpretation would not have the effect of disadvantaging or removing protections from trans people. This is because, in addition to protection based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, they would also be protected from discrimination based on being perceived as or associated with a sex which differed from their biological sex (paras 249-261).
Unfortunately, it was taken as vindication of the anti-trans position by all public commentators regardless of the commentators themselves were pro or anti.
That's because the Supreme Court's job is statutory interpretation, not making political statements. But given that it's such a politically divisive topic, I think it's clear they felt the need to remind readers of the FWS judgment that it's about the former and not the latter, and that it should be considered in this framing.
That it also happens to be a major and very welcome win for women's rights is orthogonal to the intentions of the UKSC.
Indeed, but historical nuance bears remembering here. The UK has been authoritarian for much of its history: the monarchy; sentencing to prison thousands of miles away to be slave labor for colony building for stealing a loaf of bread.
Even while Europe is "Pan Western" it's still heavily differentiated. As [REDACTED TO PREVENT REFLEXT DOWNVOTES] says, "US is the central pillar of Western civilization." This is true in the sense that it embodies values closest to the Western ideal.
This is one of those conversations that in 2025 entering will get you on a GB border control blacklist, so I'm going to shut up now.
It started before that. The powers that be in western European countries can no longer deliver prosperity or security to their citizens, so must instead use force and repression to cling on to power.
Many European countries got rich without colonization (e.g the Baltic States before WW2, or Austria-Hungary).
Moreover, economic studies show that the profitability was discutable - in the case of France it was a net loss due to the massive infrastructure costs and the subsidies for non-competitive industries.
In 1096AD, while the Mayans were plunging daggers into their sacrifices' chests, England was busy opening Oxford University. What sort of fool would think that somehow all the engineering and scientific advance that would allow England to reach around the world and establish an empire could possibly have been caused by that empire?
Critiquing Israel as well as any political or religious entity or set of beliefs should be allowed, or there will be problems. This is basically the Paradox of Tolerance coupled with the fact that intolerance itself seems to be a viral meme if left unchecked.
I still can't believe the UK has arrested people based on their social media posts. Why are people standing for that, over there? (I'm a US citizen.) Meanwhile, one could make direct quotes from the Quran or Hadith and you'd likely remain unchallenged because religion gets a free pass from reasonable critique for some illogical reason. Appeasement will eventually lead to fear...
> It’s ironic how the West has long championed democracy, demanded freedom of speech, and called for human rights from everyone.
What's really remarkable is how completely the illusion that this is what they were doing lasted in those countries. Some authority somewhere is cursing letting plebs on the Internet for destroying this.
Ask a latin american and see if they think that's what has been going on.
This Xennial cannot help but notice the zeitgeist mirrors the emotional abstract of the Reagan 80s.
See Roger and Me, Michael Moore's first film. Economic downturn, workers facing uncertainty as the already opulent thrive.
Coincidentally GenXers that would have come of age at the time are middle managers and decision makers in corporate land.
CEO that jacked up Epipen prices. Insurance CEO that got got. Musk and Thiel. The original emo Smashing Pumpkins generation that grew up in a cocaine fueled era of news full of desperation and despair. Easy for them to tolerate and accept then as their brains nursed on it.
Honestly, if you are able to, get out while you still can. For too long we’ve been on this slippery path and no government has any incentive to step off it.
People speak as though Farage would be any different but fail to acknowledge that he is as much a grifter as any of the others running, if not more so.
Maybe the Greens would provide some change but, at this point, they’re no more than a protest vote which is why I personally stopped my membership.
The fact that consecutive governments all used phrases like ‘all pulling our weight’ in reference to the cost of living crisis while taking pay rises for themselves should say it all but, sadly, people are too busy chasing headlines and internet points to extrapolate and assess a situation logically.
The UK and its allies will very much be on the wrong side of history should humanity live to see the next century through.
And go where? The US is in pretty bad shape and sinking. Europe can be a bit better or much worse depending on your background. Is there any solid alternative?
You’re right in that there is no one place which will solve all of one’s problems. There is an entire continent across the channel which will at least permit you to easily travel through, and settle in, a decent number of countries with very little effort.
While it’s not a silver bullet by any means, being able to freely move between, and experience, multiple cultures outweighs the melancholy we have back in Blighty.
We, in the UK, are constantly told how great we have it in terms of healthcare and welfare. The reality is the opposite. Our healthcare is barely fit for purpose. Our welfare system fails to help those who need it the most.
The one thing I have noticed more than anything else during my travels is that we, in the UK, have resigned our ourselves to a mentality of hopeless acceptance of the status quo. We tend to shrug it off with reductive statements such as ‘well, X has Y problem’ as if that justifies the swathe of issues which should not be present in a country which has tried to position itself on the world stage as a vestibule for decency and morality over the past century.
Nowhere is _perfect_, but many places are _better_.
In Ireland opposition to the ongoing Genocide in Palestine is a wholly secular and humanitarian concern, divorced entirely from any correlation with race, religion, ethos or creed - despite agitators attempts to label it to the contrary. We are, however, unique in Western Europe in this regard - but it is not a mono-culture and the reasons are very contextual.
While Germany is not an advocate of genocide in any sense, it is a major arms exporter to Israel and has also barely been re-admitted into the human race as a result of their egregious human rights violations and war crimes in the previous century. This over-erring on the side of caution for their previous victims can thus be explained, if not excused.
The UK, however, have distinguished themselves instead by trying to prosecute Irish Rappers for Terrorism, and proscribing Palestine Action a terrorist organisation - putting it alongside Al Qaeda and ISIS, and making support of the group a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison. It seems that to protect democracy under the current newspeak you have to arrest Placard wielding Pensioners.
British police have made over 1,300 arrests using terrorism legislation at Palestine Action protests this summer — five times more than the total number of arrests for terrorism-related activity in the U.K. in all of 2024. From a retired British colonel to a Catholic priest, half of the 532 people arrested in the Parliament Square protest alone were 60 or older.
Those participating in anything akin to the Coal Miner's Strikes of the 80s under Thatcher would no doubt find themselves charged with 'domestic terrorism' and put on no-fly lists alongside other societally chilling measures. In short, this is to distract from the economic black-hole they find themselves in post-Brexit, with incitement to hatred spurred on by paid agitators like Tommy Robinson who is in turn backed by Elon Musk/Russia, or Nathan Gill the former MEP who was jailed for accepting around £40,000 in bribes from a Russian-linked individual to support pro-Russian politicians.
France has its own particularly xenophobic issues - but they are focused on Islamic migration from North Africa as a follow-on from France's appalling history of Colonial abuse in the region. Thus the French far-right, typified historically by their anti-semitism, end up as uneasy bedfellows and proxy Zionists by virtue of Marine Le Pen's stance since kicking her father out of their far-right party over his persistent refutation of the Holocaust.
Our colonial legacy in Ireland, as the oppressed, however, grants us a special insight and advocacy for those in analogous circumstances - be it historically re: refusing to handle goods from Apartheid South Africa, or contemporarily with our Occupied Territories Bill (or whatever watered down version passes American MNC muster).
You mean the Ireland that wanted to redefine "genocide" so they could call the war genocide? Thus the government that knew it was not genocide.
Sorry, but war in urban areas is extremely ugly. That does not make it genocide.
As for apartheid South Africa--look at the reality. Their revolution was jumping from the frying pan to the fire. Just because the new oppressors were of the same skin color doesn't make them not oppressors.
This seems unlikely as support for conspiracy theories about Israel (eg the genocide hoax) are common in the UK including among the ruling classes, e.g. the police and the BBC.
The people being visited by police for creating content that other people say they find offensive are generally anti-immigration or anti gender ideology rather than anti-Israel.
I just asked AI what the thousands of arrests for social media posts so far are for and it didn't say anti-semetic content. It said it's largely targeted at anti-immigrant, gender-critical, and being mean to politicians comments. Israel is the "woke right" line these days though, and something the "woke left" and "woke right" can both agree on hating.
Please stop doing this. If someone wants to read LLM-generated hooey of some variety, they can submit a prompt somewhere and read the resulting text themselves.
Well I could do a web search and read all the thousands of articles about social media censorship in Britian and write an essay on it with grammar errors, or I could go on here and blame Israel like the OP, because that's just what I'm feeling today and I saw a bunch of stuff while TikTok doomscrolling yesterday that made me believe that. You'd say the articles I quoted that didn't say Israel were not from reliable sources, and absolutely nobody's mind would be changed. I'll trust AI to be more objective about doing the research. However, I did write the comment myself. I mean I would go back and edit it and put in random no-no words for AI, just to prove that, but I'd get flagged.
Only to suddenly adopt authoritarian, anti-free speech, anti-human rights, and anti-protest stances the moment free speech began to critique Israel.
It’s truly shameful to see such developments.