This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In 2024 several protestors in Bristol broke into an Elbit Systems defense factory with sledgehammers attempting to smash up the place. Police arrived and in the fracas one officer was hit in the back and seriously injured. They were acquitted on charges of aggravated burglary and partial or no verdicts were reached on criminal damage, violent disorder, and grievous bodily harm with intent.
The defense argued that the action did not rise to the level of GBH with intent, which is defined as
Instead, Mr. Corner, an autistic man, was pepper sprayed, confused, and attempting to defend his comrade being restrained and arrested, so malicious intent was not present.
It should also be noted that protestors put up jury nullification signs around the trial.
Juries don't have to give reasons, but this is almost certainly a straightforward jury nullification case. Enough left-wing Britons* believe that arms sales to countries with bad human rights records are per se illegitimate and therefore that vandalising an arms factory is legitimate to hang a jury - particularly in a place like Bristol. The other famous recent jury nullifications in vandalism cases are are the 2020 case where rioters in Bristol dumped a statue of a slave trader into the sea, and the 2021 case where climate protestors graffitied Shell UK HQ. There were also some older cases involving vandalism of British Aerospace factories making warplanes.
* Yes, Britons. This particular facet of left-wing culture is whiter than the census.
The court case was in London according to media reports, not Bristol. But I guess your wider point still stands.
This should have been a shut and dry criminal case (particularily the GBH), but Starmer politicized it by proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist group. The initial justification was that they were attacking "jewish businesses" as some sort of kristallnacht. When people realized the business was a weapons manufacturer, the tone was already set that this was a political move to placate a country that most Britons have a negtive view on. Since then there have been months of indeed very peaceful protest with pensioners being hauled away for holding signs saying: "I support Palestine Action". Not many people are fiercely zionist in the UK and for most this was just a stupid way of using police resources.
For a bunch of unwashed thugs these activists seem much better at swaying public perception than the Labour party.
And it is another one in an increasingly long line of self-enforced errors by Starmer. He could have waited until the trial finished to suggest the terrorist designations. He could have led the case with the serious assault on the policewoman instead of "jewish businesses", but he literally cant help himself when it comes to virtue signaling towards zionists. So we are now in the interesting situation where a bunch of pensioners have been arrested and given tickets for supporting a "terrorist organization", but the state can not even get a guilty verdict for the absolute worst crime these Palestine Action activists have committed.
Another example of Starmers self-destructive loyalty to zionism can also be observed in the saga around Peter Mandelson. Starmer and his cronies were so eager to reward the foremost zionist operative in the labour party they were willing to overlook all the shady Epstein business. This one might actually lead to Starmers downfall as a PM.
Mandelson wasn't brought back as a reward for his Zionism (and he is far from the most outspoken Zionist in Blair's inner circle - Blair raised a lot of money in the north London Jewish community). Mandelson was brought back because Starmer thought he was a Trump whisperer. From a cynical perspective, Mandelson's personal corruption and Epstein connections were key qualifications for the role - an honest man couldn't have done what Starmer hired Mandelson to do. Being gay should have protected Mandelson from Epstein-related fallout - I don't think anyone had twigged quite how blatant the bribery could get in a fundamentally criminal elite social network.
Mandelson was involved far beyond his role as US ambassador (which he only wanted to do part time anyway). He was brought back to vet labour candidates before the last election. Quite a few were struck off due to being unsuitable, which usually meant having tweeted something slightly critical of Israel at some point. In one particular instance a local candidate who was almost certain to win, was unendorsed because she had liked a video by Jon Steward about Israel. Labour lost that seat. At the same time Luke Akehurst, who was an open Israeli lobbyist (and very disliked among labour party members), was parachuted in to a safe seat he had no connection too.
So Keir Starmer put one of Epsteins most famous british associates (and known as personally corrupt) in charge of deciding who was suitable to be a labour MP. Im sure the zionism was just a coincidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link