this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
85 points (100.0% liked)

World News

22882 readers
33 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


For US News, see the US News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As a German who lives in Finland: bravissimo!

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

you'll have to work on your finnish a bit more

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago
[–] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Will they criminalise denial of the Gaza genocide, you know, the one that is currently underway?

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 5 points 1 month ago

Not yet. The ICJ is still examining the mountain of evidence. It will probably take a few more years.

I dont think we coined the term Holocaust until after the Germans lost the war. I imagine it'll be the same with Gaza. History needs to happen and be written first.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago

Criminalise the gaza genocide denial, too.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

On one hand, this feels very "thoughtcrime"-y. On the other, certain people should probably just not have a platform to spew their nonsense on. I'm curious to see how this plays out.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Popper's paradox

The only way for tolerance to exist, is to not tolerate intolerance.

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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

If someone does not abide by the terms of the contract, then 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 should NOT be tolerated.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 1 month ago

That reminds me of the south park episode with Mr Slave

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I feel like banning their speech will only make them look like martyrs

[–] BurningRiver@beehaw.org 8 points 1 month ago

I feel like as long as the banned speech is extremely specifically defined, I don’t care if they look like martyrs. “The holocaust never happened” is easily defined as holocaust denial, and it’s easy to enforce.

The problems arrive when a law is passed with an ambiguous, poorly defined meaning like “hate speech”. Hate speech can really mean anything someone else doesn’t like.

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Laws restricting speech are a disgrace. Unbelievable that they actually seem to be passing it.

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The classic "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" denier.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago

Everyone knows you can only yell "fire" in an empty theatre. You generally get trespassed immediately thereafter.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Which Holocaust? All of them, or just the one from 80 years ago?

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 3 points 1 month ago

Probably not all of them. We dont know of every one. Some were prehistory.

I'm not a Finn, but I dont think they were involved in many Holocausts except one?