Previous thread on topic:
Not going weigh in on the Muhammad thing here, since there’s another thread, and I’m not fully up on it.
But this type of talk bothers me tremendously. It is absolutely morally abhorrent to stand by a friend if you think what they did is wrong. The reason why you can be friends with someone is because their morals mostly align–you know they’re good people. You may not agree on everything, but you know you agree enough that you have common ground, and that you can trust them.
The whole idea that you have some obligation to descend into what you believe is immoral because your friend does so is this horrible fake morality that horrible people have pushed into our code of honor so that evil people can get away with being evil.
You can argue that his position itself is wrong. And I won’t debate that here. But, if he truly believes that what is going on is some sort of bigotry against Muslims, then of course he’s not going to stand up with his “friends” who support those actions.
This logical of “loyalty” to people instead of ideas, sticking with them when they do thing you consider wrong is exactly why people like Trump can come to office. The Republican party has problems with thinking it needs to be loyal, almost as an addiontal aspcect of morality.
It’s actually a divide found between those on the right and left. Conservatives add extra moral foundations, such as loyalty, while liberals see them as secondary, and not moral pillars–you’re loyal only when being loyal is the more moral option. And I think it’s why they were more open to Trump–even by the Evangelicals who have to ignore the Bible to do so.
And, just like with them, when you compromise your morals for loyalty or frienship, that just tells me you never really belived it in the first place.
You can argue about whether Trudeau’s stance is good. But given his stance, I don’t think you can argue that he should have given in. The reason why Trump abandoning allies is bad is because we’re supposed to be sharing a common moral framework with the allies he shits on, not the dictators he tries to cozy up with. It’s not because sticking with allies is inherently the right thing when they do things you think are wrong.
Sorry for the long post: I don’t really have time to make it shorter.
@BigT: Well okay then. I personally approve of France’s values, it’s one of the countries I would consider moving to if I have to leave this one, and I consider the French to be my friends and allies. Maybe Trudeau doesn’t. But then, by your argument, he should just say that he believes French values to be wrong, rather than equivocating.
We’ll see what Canadians think of this display, but I’m already seeing some rather strong criticism of Trudeau.
I think Trudeau sees no advantage to weighing in. Supporting Macron would alienate some local Muslims and possibly lead to more. Criticizing him would lead to accusations of rejecting key freedoms. Canada is a medium player - in no case would his personal opinion make a big difference to France or Macron - whom he might well agree with. In any case, he would be more criticized for little benefit.
Wait, maybe this was a mistake, but you literally just wrote that 101 health care workers died of SARS. That is greater than the number of deaths attributed to SARS in all of Canada.
These deaths were on a global basis - I didn’t say 101 Canadian health care workers died. Although some did. Deaths due to SARS were mainly localized to China, Canada, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore.
In several threads, I see Canadians essentially arguing that we should interpret Trudeau’s statements (or lack thereof) more in terms of virtue signaling rather than of substance. So Muslims will hear Trudeau and think he opposes blasphemy, while free speech supporters will understand that Trudeau agrees with them, and Macron will know that Canada will always be on the side of France. Whatever Trudeau’s true position is (and even if he has one).
But on this, Trudeau is being heavily criticized. I feel it’s pretty universal in Quebec (here’s premier Legault tweeting about Macron thanking him for his support that Trudeau wouldn’t offer), but even in the Globe and Mail Konrad Yakabuski condemned Trudeau and expressed support for Macron.
I agree to some extent. When you don’t know what to do, err on the side of doing the right thing. Trudeau is too much a politician and prefers to avoid calling more attention with little practical effect, but I have little doubt the risks and benefits were weighed.
Trying to preserve Northern Piper’s anonymity, but he actually does have superior knowledge of the Canadian government. We are very lucky to have him here.
Didn’t I hear he was The Masked Singer on an upcoming episode?
No. No I did not.
I assumed he was The Stig from Top Gear.
I’ve never doubted his knowledge - only his pedantic, patronizing and arrogant way of delivering it. 
By the standards of the Straight Dope, I wouldn’t call the posts arrogant. It’s not like he has a 1920s style Death Ray or turns every discussion to the perils of circumcision.
A certain level of directness is needed to discuss law and relatively few wear that knowledge as lightly or are as diplomatic as @Northern_Piper.
O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
I have to agree. I’ve never seen Northern Piper’s posts as remotely being arrogant or patronizing. Gonna have to call that #FakeNews.
Look on my works ye mighty, and despair!
A well-written article.
That is a very good article (tip - if you want to get behind the paywall, you can cut and paste the url into outline.com). I have thought about free speech and tolerance/intolerance many times - there is no simple answer to that question. Most people should be free to say most things; some things should not be tolerated.
Can I give you easy, simple rules for what should not be tolerated? Not really. If it hurts other people (for example, taking rights away from women), it probably should not be tolerated. If it hurts no one else (like making a drawing of Mohammed), it probably should.
Sorry. I subscribe to a bunch of stuff and am not always aware when access is blocked. Still, they used to give you a bunch of free looks but can’t remember if you had to cough up an email address or not. Thanks for the workaround.
No worries; I never want to turn off my adblocker, so I use outline. com as often as I can. 
How does speech hurt other people? Or do you mean speech that advocates hurting other people? And by ‘hurting other people’ you don’t mean advocating violence, but things like, “Women should not be paid as much as men”, “Abortion is murder”, etc? If that’s off base, can you give me a few examples of the kind of speech you would block?