naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
28926 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a 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.
A pro-Palestine rally in Sydney has featured the same kind of naked antisemitism that is increasingly common at these sorts of events - in this case including chants of "fuck the Jews".
However, unlike America which has a first amendment to protect offensive speech, Australia is not so squeamish about cracking down on wrongthink. Conservatives tried (and failed) some years back to change the federal law that makes it illegal to "offend or insult" a person on the basis of race, and state-based racial vilification laws carry criminal penalties. States recently have been banning the swastika and other Nazi symbols too.
So, how does this get applied when the racial vilification is coming from Labor-voting Muslims rather than One Nation-voting whites? Well, we got an indication today:
NSW premier Chris Minns said the police’s decision to allow the protest was “operational”.
NSW police have launched an investigation and the premier warned anyone caught taking part in “racial vilification or incitement of hatred or incitement of violence” would be charged. He described the scenes at the Opera House as “abhorrent”.
“To have some people celebrate atrocious indiscriminate killing and kidnapping in Israel is appalling,” he said.
“This is the opposite of the dynamic multicultural community we want in NSW and Australia. Racial epithets were thrown at the Jewish community by the mere fact that they were members of the Jewish community which is shocking and abusive and potentially a crime.”
To be clear, I supported the unsuccessful move to amend the Racial Discrimination Act and generally think that expressing odious views should not be illegal. But I'm also a big believer in the even handed application of law, and given that the country decided to reject the argument that "people have a right to be bigots" (as Brandis put it), I'm going to give myself a pass to enjoy watching some of the less pleasant parts of society get an involuntary legal education.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
AshLael 7mo ago
The question I keep coming back to when I see these pro-Palestinians-murdering-Jews rallies is, "why are these people here?". That's my instinctual response to seeing this in New York, Toronto, Sidney, really any nice, polite, Anglo-founded civilization. Don't get me wrong, I understand why they want to be here, there's all sorts of material goods to be gained by moving to nice, polite, Anglo-founded civilizations. What I mean is how did we wind up with a set of policies that allowed immigration of people that were going to bring their old ethnic hatreds and import them to nice, polite, Anglo civilizations. I can't really begrudge black Americans for holding a grudge over American history and I certainly will grant that Native Americans have a point or two. But why the hell did we add a set of people with Middle Eastern grievances to celebrate the barbaric murder of Jews?
This is, of course, rhetorical and I am familiar with the history of immigration in these countries, but I just can't get past that being my sentiment every time. Whether people have a right to be bigots or not, Sydney didn't need to invite them in to do on the steps of the Opera House. The people that want to engage in desert barbarism should be doing so in said desert, not in Times Square.
Many Irish-Americans supported the IRA, and indeed one can imagine, Native Americans complaining about why these Anglos came here and brought all their nonsense from the Old World, with their Protestants and Catholics and Monarchists and so on.
You're starting from a premise that Anglos didn't bring their grievances with them, and I don't think that is clearly true. In fact the truth is, I think everywhere we go, (people in general) we always bring our grievances with us. From Puritan settlers to Quakers and on, you can see those grievances impact on today. Why do you think PA has such restrictive liquor laws compated to say Texas?
We can just over a long enough period, replace our old grievances with new ones that better fit our new situation. It just takes time.
Give it a minute and just like Irish-Americans complaining more about blacks in Boston, or Polacks somewhere else, everyone will get proper new grievances against the people next door instead. Yes, yes Israel is bad, but have you seen that they want to put a half way house just down from the mosque?
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
SSCReader 7mo ago
Many Irish-Americans supported the IRA
Yeah, and it wasn't great!
Native Americans complaining about why these Anglos came here and brought all their nonsense from the Old World, with their Protestants and Catholics and Monarchists and so on.
As above, I think the Natives have something of a point. If nothing else, I surely wouldn't be inclined to tell them that it's actually pretty normal and that they're a bunch of bigots for not welcoming it. The parallels obviously stop making sense in short order, but I think we can confidently say that the squabbles of Europeans being brought to Americans shores sucked for the people that were the previous residents of those shores.
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 -
A pro-Palestine rally in Sydney has featured the same kind of naked antisemitism that is increasingly common at these sorts of events - in this case including chants of "fuck the Jews".
However, unlike America which has a first amendment to protect offensive speech, Australia is not so squeamish about cracking down on wrongthink. Conservatives tried (and failed) some years back to change the federal law that makes it illegal to "offend or insult" a person on the basis of race, and state-based racial vilification laws carry criminal penalties. States recently have been banning the swastika and other Nazi symbols too.
So, how does this get applied when the racial vilification is coming from Labor-voting Muslims rather than One Nation-voting whites? Well, we got an indication today:
To be clear, I supported the unsuccessful move to amend the Racial Discrimination Act and generally think that expressing odious views should not be illegal. But I'm also a big believer in the even handed application of law, and given that the country decided to reject the argument that "people have a right to be bigots" (as Brandis put it), I'm going to give myself a pass to enjoy watching some of the less pleasant parts of society get an involuntary legal education.
The question I keep coming back to when I see these pro-Palestinians-murdering-Jews rallies is, "why are these people here?". That's my instinctual response to seeing this in New York, Toronto, Sidney, really any nice, polite, Anglo-founded civilization. Don't get me wrong, I understand why they want to be here, there's all sorts of material goods to be gained by moving to nice, polite, Anglo-founded civilizations. What I mean is how did we wind up with a set of policies that allowed immigration of people that were going to bring their old ethnic hatreds and import them to nice, polite, Anglo civilizations. I can't really begrudge black Americans for holding a grudge over American history and I certainly will grant that Native Americans have a point or two. But why the hell did we add a set of people with Middle Eastern grievances to celebrate the barbaric murder of Jews?
This is, of course, rhetorical and I am familiar with the history of immigration in these countries, but I just can't get past that being my sentiment every time. Whether people have a right to be bigots or not, Sydney didn't need to invite them in to do on the steps of the Opera House. The people that want to engage in desert barbarism should be doing so in said desert, not in Times Square.
Many Irish-Americans supported the IRA, and indeed one can imagine, Native Americans complaining about why these Anglos came here and brought all their nonsense from the Old World, with their Protestants and Catholics and Monarchists and so on.
You're starting from a premise that Anglos didn't bring their grievances with them, and I don't think that is clearly true. In fact the truth is, I think everywhere we go, (people in general) we always bring our grievances with us. From Puritan settlers to Quakers and on, you can see those grievances impact on today. Why do you think PA has such restrictive liquor laws compated to say Texas?
We can just over a long enough period, replace our old grievances with new ones that better fit our new situation. It just takes time.
Give it a minute and just like Irish-Americans complaining more about blacks in Boston, or Polacks somewhere else, everyone will get proper new grievances against the people next door instead. Yes, yes Israel is bad, but have you seen that they want to put a half way house just down from the mosque?
Yeah, and it wasn't great!
As above, I think the Natives have something of a point. If nothing else, I surely wouldn't be inclined to tell them that it's actually pretty normal and that they're a bunch of bigots for not welcoming it. The parallels obviously stop making sense in short order, but I think we can confidently say that the squabbles of Europeans being brought to Americans shores sucked for the people that were the previous residents of those shores.
They certainly did, and it does suck, but complaining about 1 group doing it when every other group does the same is an isolated demand for rigor.
To be clear, it is not good. But it is entirely normal. Its not about Anglos and Middle Easterners, its about people.
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