This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
Is there anything in Braverman's comments that would make them exclusively a reference to orange order parades? Drawing parallels to dissident republicans, particularly Saoradh, seems fairly apt, given that their attacks have been more recent and that they held parades shortly after murdering Lyra Mckee. Killing someone and then gloating about it via marches seems as applicable (or even moreso) to this as to the Orange Order.
This seems like scraping the barrel to find some reason to "debunk" Braverman when, broadly, her comments about the two-tier policing of protest in London are correct. Critics of lockdowns got beaten in the streets while advocates of Islamist terrorism are not. I agree with Braverman on almost nothing, but I do on this. The institutions of this country, antisemitic and anarcho-tyrannic as they are, seem deeply embaressed about being called out by a minister for this. Media, civil service, police, all would quite like to be rid of someone who's willing to challenge them and their racism.
Is there anything in Braverman's comments that would make them exclusively a reference to orange order parades?
(1) The 'clarification' only came out after everyone, including the head of the Orange Order, went "Er, Suella..."
(2) Let's say I write a newspaper article about "gatherings of masked and hooded persons dressed in white with crosses and torches", in the context of "This is a bad thing that should not be permitted", what would be the most likely reaction to that?
Then suppose I had to issue a clarification that "no no, I meant the Holy Week penitents!", because everyone thought I was talking about the Ku Klux Klan?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Here's Suella Braverman's actual article.
Is there anything in Braverman's comments that would make them exclusively a reference to orange order parades? Drawing parallels to dissident republicans, particularly Saoradh, seems fairly apt, given that their attacks have been more recent and that they held parades shortly after murdering Lyra Mckee. Killing someone and then gloating about it via marches seems as applicable (or even moreso) to this as to the Orange Order.
This seems like scraping the barrel to find some reason to "debunk" Braverman when, broadly, her comments about the two-tier policing of protest in London are correct. Critics of lockdowns got beaten in the streets while advocates of Islamist terrorism are not. I agree with Braverman on almost nothing, but I do on this. The institutions of this country, antisemitic and anarcho-tyrannic as they are, seem deeply embaressed about being called out by a minister for this. Media, civil service, police, all would quite like to be rid of someone who's willing to challenge them and their racism.
(1) The 'clarification' only came out after everyone, including the head of the Orange Order, went "Er, Suella..."
(2) Let's say I write a newspaper article about "gatherings of masked and hooded persons dressed in white with crosses and torches", in the context of "This is a bad thing that should not be permitted", what would be the most likely reaction to that?
Then suppose I had to issue a clarification that "no no, I meant the Holy Week penitents!", because everyone thought I was talking about the Ku Klux Klan?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link