this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
286 points (99.7% liked)

World News

52530 readers
2572 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The government has cancelled the visa of a Jewish influencer who has previously called for the ban of Islam and was booked to speak at several events in Australia.

The right-leaning Australian Jewish Association (AJA) said Sammy Yahood’s visa was cancelled three hours before his flight was due to depart.

The home affairs minister, Tony Burke, confirmed he had cancelled the visa on Monday evening, and said “spreading hatred is not a good reason to come”.

“If someone wants to come to Australia they should apply for the right visa and come for the right reason,” Burke told Guardian Australia in a statement.

In response to the decision, Yahood took to social media overnight to accuse Labor of “tyranny”, insisting his spirits remained high despite the block.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Either you commit to a society that respects people as people regardless of their ethnicity, religion or sexual or gender identity (so long as they don't limit the freedoms of others), or you don't. I wouldn't call that an arbitrary line. If your views cross that line, I will not tolerate them.

The local neonazis held a "book club" at a public library here once (a publicity stunt because they knew it would make a lot of people angry). One liberal writer decided to go there to participate and to talk to them. She announced this beforehand and an article was published in the biggest newspaper in the country. It must've come as quite a surprise to her and all the idiots cheering her on for her tolerance, when she changed no minds and only contributed to the publicity stunt while also lending some of her credibility to them. Tolerating their views only gives them more legitimacy as a part of the political discourse.

When I see neonazis marching on the street here, I go shout obscenities at them to make sure they as a group feel unwelcome. The last time that one of them came up to me asking if I had a problem, I tried to talk some sense into him and I think I succeeded at least to an extent. Because a one on one conversation detached from the wider context is the only possible avenue to do so, when the us vs. them tribalism is at least somewhat removed and people can actually see each other instead of just a member of the opposing tribe. No cameras or ulterior motives, no incentive to keep up appearances as the best little loyal member in our team. That's how I think we should treat intolerance.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au -2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You don't see the irony of defining a group of people whom you will not tolerate, on the basis that they are not tolerant?

Either you commit to a society that respects people as people regardless of their ethnicity, religion or sexual or gender identity (so long as they don’t limit the freedoms of others), or you don’t.

This definition might be perfectly reasonable, but like any definition it can be used to capture people you don't want to be tolerant of. Your own intentions may be virtuous, but my point is weilding the paradox of tolerance like a stick to beat fascists is hypocrisy.

Instead, it's fine to just acknowledge that we don't tolerate fascists, without trying to cling to the moral high ground with this "paradox" nonsense.

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 3 points 15 hours ago

I already explained in my previous comment that there is no real paradox, only the appearance of one when tolerance is framed as a virtue rather than a contract.

Why don't you tolerate fascists? What's your reasoning for it?