Benedict Edwards
@edsbenedict.bsky.social
my idols are dead and my enemies are in power
I absolutely love James Elroy but reading The Cold Six Thousand (which is around five hundred pages of nothing but Tight Declarative Sentences) felt like being punched in the face for an extended period. Amazing book but a real bludgeoner.
December 12, 2025 at 12:13 PM
I absolutely love James Elroy but reading The Cold Six Thousand (which is around five hundred pages of nothing but Tight Declarative Sentences) felt like being punched in the face for an extended period. Amazing book but a real bludgeoner.
I didn’t see the words ‘genocidal’ or ‘fascist’ crop up in that definition
December 11, 2025 at 10:27 PM
I didn’t see the words ‘genocidal’ or ‘fascist’ crop up in that definition
Zionism is the belief that Israel has a right to exist.
That belief is not inherently anything if Israel is not inherently anything.
If you were talking about fundamentalist / extremist / far right Zionism (i.e. Netanyahu) in those terms I'd have no objection. But Zionism is a neutral belief.
That belief is not inherently anything if Israel is not inherently anything.
If you were talking about fundamentalist / extremist / far right Zionism (i.e. Netanyahu) in those terms I'd have no objection. But Zionism is a neutral belief.
December 3, 2025 at 6:20 PM
Zionism is the belief that Israel has a right to exist.
That belief is not inherently anything if Israel is not inherently anything.
If you were talking about fundamentalist / extremist / far right Zionism (i.e. Netanyahu) in those terms I'd have no objection. But Zionism is a neutral belief.
That belief is not inherently anything if Israel is not inherently anything.
If you were talking about fundamentalist / extremist / far right Zionism (i.e. Netanyahu) in those terms I'd have no objection. But Zionism is a neutral belief.
Your first sentence and your last sentence directly contradict one another.
December 2, 2025 at 1:14 PM
Your first sentence and your last sentence directly contradict one another.
I'm objecting to the contention that Israel *as a concept* is inherently genocidal and fascist. If you want to criticise the foreign policy decisions of the Israeli governments since 1967 then I am with you 100% of the way - my objection is specific and limited to that contention.
December 1, 2025 at 10:24 AM
I'm objecting to the contention that Israel *as a concept* is inherently genocidal and fascist. If you want to criticise the foreign policy decisions of the Israeli governments since 1967 then I am with you 100% of the way - my objection is specific and limited to that contention.
not a counterargument.
it is possible to argue that Jewish people needed a safe place to go after WW2 and not be in favour of genocide.
there is nothing inherent in the existence of Israel that says it must commit genocide. that is a political choice.
it is possible to argue that Jewish people needed a safe place to go after WW2 and not be in favour of genocide.
there is nothing inherent in the existence of Israel that says it must commit genocide. that is a political choice.
November 30, 2025 at 1:24 PM
not a counterargument.
it is possible to argue that Jewish people needed a safe place to go after WW2 and not be in favour of genocide.
there is nothing inherent in the existence of Israel that says it must commit genocide. that is a political choice.
it is possible to argue that Jewish people needed a safe place to go after WW2 and not be in favour of genocide.
there is nothing inherent in the existence of Israel that says it must commit genocide. that is a political choice.
Zionism is just the belief that Israel has a right to exist, not that it has the right to commit genocide. Important to distinguish between Israelis who don’t support Netanyahu and those who do.
November 30, 2025 at 8:36 AM
Zionism is just the belief that Israel has a right to exist, not that it has the right to commit genocide. Important to distinguish between Israelis who don’t support Netanyahu and those who do.
Huge props for the level of deadpan in this statement - no capitals, no punctuation, just pure snark. I love it.
November 26, 2025 at 1:49 PM
Huge props for the level of deadpan in this statement - no capitals, no punctuation, just pure snark. I love it.
This paragraph shows - at least in principle - that the harassment could be seen as going both ways.
I don't think that's Sophie's fault and it's an unfair comparison between a wealthy middle age dude with media cloud vs a trans teen with very few followers, but the principle is arguable.
I don't think that's Sophie's fault and it's an unfair comparison between a wealthy middle age dude with media cloud vs a trans teen with very few followers, but the principle is arguable.
November 25, 2025 at 9:37 PM
This paragraph shows - at least in principle - that the harassment could be seen as going both ways.
I don't think that's Sophie's fault and it's an unfair comparison between a wealthy middle age dude with media cloud vs a trans teen with very few followers, but the principle is arguable.
I don't think that's Sophie's fault and it's an unfair comparison between a wealthy middle age dude with media cloud vs a trans teen with very few followers, but the principle is arguable.
And it bookends the whole trilogy perfectly - first when he should've died, and covering the borrowed time until he finally did. It's an incredible work. I never read writers autobiographies but hers is unbelievably good.
November 25, 2025 at 9:35 PM
And it bookends the whole trilogy perfectly - first when he should've died, and covering the borrowed time until he finally did. It's an incredible work. I never read writers autobiographies but hers is unbelievably good.
While I am on Sophie's side and I think Glinner is a monster, and I think the judge betrayed a bias in not using Sophie's preferred pronouns in the judgement, I also think that if this paragraph is accurate it does provide a bit of context on why Sophie wasn't necessarily believed 100%.
November 25, 2025 at 4:28 PM
While I am on Sophie's side and I think Glinner is a monster, and I think the judge betrayed a bias in not using Sophie's preferred pronouns in the judgement, I also think that if this paragraph is accurate it does provide a bit of context on why Sophie wasn't necessarily believed 100%.
It's one of the things I loved about the Wolf Hall - the only description of the world you get comes from when characters interact with it - Cromwell might bang his fist on a table you had no idea was there until she describes it. Gives the impression that characters light up the world as they move.
November 25, 2025 at 3:38 PM
It's one of the things I loved about the Wolf Hall - the only description of the world you get comes from when characters interact with it - Cromwell might bang his fist on a table you had no idea was there until she describes it. Gives the impression that characters light up the world as they move.
Great piece. For those of us on the outside who can’t see the way the politics fit together, pieces like this really lay bare the yawning gap at the heart of Farageism.
November 5, 2025 at 8:32 AM
Great piece. For those of us on the outside who can’t see the way the politics fit together, pieces like this really lay bare the yawning gap at the heart of Farageism.
I read The Cold Six Thousand by James Ellroy a few years back. The whole thing is tight declarative sentences for like five hundred pages. I finished it feeling like I'd been punched in the face, then I went back and read it again.
I want to hate Ellroy, but I just can't. He's a master at it.
I want to hate Ellroy, but I just can't. He's a master at it.
October 14, 2025 at 2:39 PM
I read The Cold Six Thousand by James Ellroy a few years back. The whole thing is tight declarative sentences for like five hundred pages. I finished it feeling like I'd been punched in the face, then I went back and read it again.
I want to hate Ellroy, but I just can't. He's a master at it.
I want to hate Ellroy, but I just can't. He's a master at it.
The whole anti-leasehold movement started out as a response to retirement homes. Leasehold Knowledge Partnership has its roots in that murkyworld.
September 9, 2025 at 2:30 PM
The whole anti-leasehold movement started out as a response to retirement homes. Leasehold Knowledge Partnership has its roots in that murkyworld.
This was supposed to be ‘this’ll cool you down’
August 23, 2025 at 6:45 PM
This was supposed to be ‘this’ll cool you down’
Seriously ridiculous. The great #bobhoskins would’ve given you a dry slap for this
August 23, 2025 at 6:17 PM
Seriously ridiculous. The great #bobhoskins would’ve given you a dry slap for this
Once again you’re stating out from the position that the killer has an ideological motive and my point is that without one they are not a terrorist.
I think I’ve made this point clearly enough that you’re just being obtuse now so I’ll mute the thread.
I think I’ve made this point clearly enough that you’re just being obtuse now so I’ll mute the thread.
August 13, 2025 at 6:34 PM
Once again you’re stating out from the position that the killer has an ideological motive and my point is that without one they are not a terrorist.
I think I’ve made this point clearly enough that you’re just being obtuse now so I’ll mute the thread.
I think I’ve made this point clearly enough that you’re just being obtuse now so I’ll mute the thread.
That definition does not limit itself to general public. Read it again.
And I asked if you’d be going this hard to defend a neonazi group doing the same things as PA. Your failure to respond speaks volumes. If your principles are inconsistently applied, what’s the point of the principle?
And I asked if you’d be going this hard to defend a neonazi group doing the same things as PA. Your failure to respond speaks volumes. If your principles are inconsistently applied, what’s the point of the principle?
August 13, 2025 at 7:19 AM
That definition does not limit itself to general public. Read it again.
And I asked if you’d be going this hard to defend a neonazi group doing the same things as PA. Your failure to respond speaks volumes. If your principles are inconsistently applied, what’s the point of the principle?
And I asked if you’d be going this hard to defend a neonazi group doing the same things as PA. Your failure to respond speaks volumes. If your principles are inconsistently applied, what’s the point of the principle?
If it’s indiscriminate (ie not for a political or ideological motive) then it is de facto not terrorism under any generally accepted definition. At that point it’s simply criminal activity. Terrorism must have an ideological component.
See the UN GEs definition from 2006, below
See the UN GEs definition from 2006, below
August 13, 2025 at 7:12 AM
If it’s indiscriminate (ie not for a political or ideological motive) then it is de facto not terrorism under any generally accepted definition. At that point it’s simply criminal activity. Terrorism must have an ideological component.
See the UN GEs definition from 2006, below
See the UN GEs definition from 2006, below
It entirely depends why they did it. Crime is what you do. Terrorism is why you do it.
August 13, 2025 at 6:08 AM
It entirely depends why they did it. Crime is what you do. Terrorism is why you do it.