If Tories get up to 34 in these places in these conditions that will be an excellent outcome for them. 😕
All the boring things from electionologists have been pointing to a Meh result for the last two weeks to be honest. Maybe it’s just the set of elections this year following high tide for anti Tory vote last time they are up, it can’t just be as much fun as hoped?
Us Libdems can still have fun at Labours expense though, taking Hull off Starmer 😈
Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
Yup. We have come a long way from a competent media doing its job. Call me old fashioned but I do like to at least start with indisputable facts.
The media took six months to discover reporting day vs day-of statistics, during COVID.
Gell-Mann Amnesia.....
And don’t get me started on asking any journalist to manage basic maths when discussing percentages - e.g. percentage point rises versus percentage rises, or basic compound interest.
You expect all those liberal arts majors that dominate the MSM, to be numerate?
The really, really annoying thing, is that there are some good scientific journalists out there, it’s just that they barely get used by the major TV news channels.
The important news is too important to be left to subject matter specialists.
Tea and biscuits with the boss. With no tea and no biscuits.
Just wtf is going on in Putin's inner circle? Why would Lavrov have gone way out on a limb like this and changed overnight Russian middle eastern policy if Putin had no idea?
He wouldn't. They know they will piss off a lot of people with the tone they strike (never mind the invasion, which most nations can happily ignore, we all ignore a lot of stuff in the world after all), and on rare occasions they may need to walk it back if it is someone whose opinion actually matters to them.
Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
Yup. We have come a long way from a competent media doing its job. Call me old fashioned but I do like to at least start with indisputable facts.
The media took six months to discover reporting day vs day-of statistics, during COVID.
Gell-Mann Amnesia.....
And don’t get me started on asking any journalist to manage basic maths when discussing percentages - e.g. percentage point rises versus percentage rises, or basic compound interest.
You expect all those liberal arts majors that dominate the MSM, to be numerate?
The really, really annoying thing, is that there are some good scientific journalists out there, it’s just that they barely get used by the major TV news channels.
The important news is too important to be left to subject matter specialists.
The Cult of The Generalist.
Being a generalist does necessarily involve basic numeracy though. The problem is basic fact-checking has been binned.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
Well I just did something rather novel. I voted Labour for the first time in my life.
No love of the party generally, but I cannot bring myself to vote Tory whilst the government is such a cluster****. Labour honestly seem like the better option right now and that’s something I didn’t think I’d hear myself ever say. Funny old world.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.
And is it even still fit for purpose?
The way the government is undermining it, you do question it.
A direct line can be traced from Sinn Féin’s performance today and that vote in 2016 which I keep banging on about.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.
The issues of indigenous and minorities occur in all types of societies, not just majoritarian democratic ones.
Usually, in the non-democratic ones, they get some version of the "square peg, round hole" treatment.
Did you ever find out how many people died in the attack on the Mariupol theatre? Or work why it might take them so long to count the dead? https://t.co/RUKxdGW7fS
No, and nor does the article you posted make it any clearer.
Did you ever find out how many people died in the attack on the Mariupol theatre? Or work why it might take them so long to count the dead? https://t.co/RUKxdGW7fS
No, and nor does the article you posted make it any clearer.
How about MH17? Do you believe the official Dutch report got it right?
Well I just did something rather novel. I voted Labour for the first time in my life.
No love of the party generally, but I cannot bring myself to vote Tory whilst the government is such a cluster****. Labour honestly seem like the better option right now and that’s something I didn’t think I’d hear myself ever say. Funny old world.
I votd Labour for the first time ever, because there was no libdem standing, probably a good thing as a split vote would probably let the tory in.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.
And is it even still fit for purpose?
We shall find out Friday.
As someone who was born there - the point of the agreement is that the politicians and population of NI can't be trusted with democracy. So kindergarten rules....
The fact that if the Alliance comes second, then there is a problem, illustrates the comic nature of the system.
"To be sure, to be sure. But are you a Protestant Hindu or a Catholic Hindu?"
Well I just did something rather novel. I voted Labour for the first time in my life.
No love of the party generally, but I cannot bring myself to vote Tory whilst the government is such a cluster****. Labour honestly seem like the better option right now and that’s something I didn’t think I’d hear myself ever say. Funny old world.
I votd Labour for the first time ever, because there was no libdem standing, probably a good thing as a split vote would probably let the tory in.
The way the government is undermining it, you do question it.
A direct line can be traced from Sinn Féin’s performance today and that vote in 2016 which I keep banging on about.
Sinn Féin's performance in the most recent Assembly elections:
2007: 26.2% 2011: 26.9% 2016: 24.0% 2017: 27.9%
The latest tracker poll has them on 26%. If anything stands out post-that-vote-in-2016, it's not Sinn Féin's performance but the growth of the Alliance.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.
And is it even still fit for purpose?
The way the government is undermining it, you do question it.
A direct line can be traced from Sinn Féin’s performance today and that vote in 2016 which I keep banging on about.
The problems of Northern Ireland require everyone to compromise and understand each other. It’s been sad to see it used as a political tool over the past six years, with little regard given to those who live there.
The way the government is undermining it, you do question it.
A direct line can be traced from Sinn Féin’s performance today and that vote in 2016 which I keep banging on about.
Sinn Féin's performance in the most recent Assembly elections:
2007: 26.2% 2011: 26.9% 2016: 24.0% 2017: 27.9%
The latest tracker poll has them on 26%. If anything stands out post-that-vote-in-2016, it's not Sinn Féin's performance but the growth of the Alliance.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.
And is it even still fit for purpose?
The way the government is undermining it, you do question it.
A direct line can be traced from Sinn Féin’s performance today and that vote in 2016 which I keep banging on about.
The problems of Northern Ireland require everyone to compromise and understand each other. It’s been sad to see it used as a political tool over the past six years, with little regard given to those who live there.
1) the Men* of Violence to collect their multiple 6 figure salaries in return for forgetting to actually murder their opponents. 2) Their "businesses" are carefully left untouched. 3) If they get a bit anti-agreement, then their "businesses" become fair game. See Slab Murphy.
*Very unrepresentative of women, the MoVs. Generally pretty... "Gammon" I think the PB term is.
I notice they don't consider N Ireland to be "key". Adds to my theory that the media establishment are going to be shocked at what the most significant story will be.
The way the government is undermining it, you do question it.
A direct line can be traced from Sinn Féin’s performance today and that vote in 2016 which I keep banging on about.
Sinn Féin's performance in the most recent Assembly elections:
2007: 26.2% 2011: 26.9% 2016: 24.0% 2017: 27.9%
The latest tracker poll has them on 26%. If anything stands out post-that-vote-in-2016, it's not Sinn Féin's performance but the growth of the Alliance.
Heartwarming, really. I’d love to interpret it as a block of voters starting to say “can you lot actually govern for a bit please”?
Well I just did something rather novel. I voted Labour for the first time in my life.
No love of the party generally, but I cannot bring myself to vote Tory whilst the government is such a cluster****. Labour honestly seem like the better option right now and that’s something I didn’t think I’d hear myself ever say. Funny old world.
I votd Labour for the first time ever, because there was no libdem standing, probably a good thing as a split vote would probably let the tory in.
Well that's two over to the dark side. Welcome.
Surely either from the dark side or to the light side?
Re: today's elections what is basic timetable for results? For example, will they start counting in Northern Ireland tonight OR wait until Friday?
Am guessing that returns from local elections in Britain will start trickling in around midnight? Specifically, what about London?
ALSO what are some good links for live blogs & results reporting?
Thanks in advance for your aid & assistance for your fellow PBer(s)!
N. Ireland is Friday. It's STV, a long count with multiple rounds, so needs a full day.
Same as in Republic. Sensible way to do it, election one day, counting the next.
Yours truly has observed plenty of elections, where election workers & administrators put in a full Election Day, and then some - and then work some more processing ballots & counting votes into the wee hours. NOT optimum from efficiency standpoint.
Whereas on the Emerald Isle, having the count the following day gives workers AND observers the opportunity to get a decent night's sleep between plunging into the vote counting bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).
An aborigine from the Tiwi islands is clearly different from the average freckly Cornish housewife in a way that is not really explicable unless you resort to some kind of “racial” definition
I’ve read quite widely in this area and my punt is that there are three broadly defined races which can be roughly differentiated - African, Indo-European, East Asian. And possibly a fourth: Australasian. There are a zillion overlaps, contradictions, anomalies - where do you put the San of the Kalahari, indigenous Americans, Ashkenazi Jews, Emma Raducanu?
But all these complexities and awkward questions do not mean the concept of race is entirely constructed by society. It plainly is not. It exists biologically and it is ALSO a social construct
Well I just did something rather novel. I voted Labour for the first time in my life.
No love of the party generally, but I cannot bring myself to vote Tory whilst the government is such a cluster****. Labour honestly seem like the better option right now and that’s something I didn’t think I’d hear myself ever say. Funny old world.
I votd Labour for the first time ever, because there was no libdem standing, probably a good thing as a split vote would probably let the tory in.
Well that's two over to the dark side. Welcome.
Surely either from the dark side or to the light side?
Did you ever find out how many people died in the attack on the Mariupol theatre? Or work why it might take them so long to count the dead? https://t.co/RUKxdGW7fS
No, and nor does the article you posted make it any clearer.
Did you ever find out how many people died in the attack on the Mariupol theatre? Or work why it might take them so long to count the dead? https://t.co/RUKxdGW7fS
No, and nor does the article you posted make it any clearer.
You’ve come up with some corkers
“What is great to think, is that when as seems imminent, this conflict finishes”
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).
An aborigine from the Tiwi islands is clearly different from the average freckly Cornish housewife in a way that is not really explicable unless you resort to some kind of “racial” definition
I’ve read quite widely in this area and my punt is that there are three broadly defined races which can be roughly differentiated - African, Indo-European, East Asian. And possibly a fourth: Australasian. There are a zillion overlaps, contradictions, anomalies - where do you put the San of the Kalahari, indigenous Americans, Ashkenazi Jews, Emma Raducanu?
But all these complexities and awkward questions do not mean the concept of race is entirely constructed by society. It plainly is not. It exists biologically and it is ALSO a social construct
I don’t know enough to answer this question, but someone might. If you viewed the human species as we do animals, would we have sub species? By which I mean distinct populations that are related but can be differentiated.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.
And is it even still fit for purpose?
I think the difficulty with such arrangements is when they become fissiparious rather than unifying amongst the different groups.
Potentially very fragile. And vulnerable to excessive external changes, or an unwillingness by larger groups to recognise minorities - which of course is as old as the hills. Or sometimes not.
I think the representation no longer matching the populations were one factor in the Lebanese Civil War, for example.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).
An aborigine from the Tiwi islands is clearly different from the average freckly Cornish housewife in a way that is not really explicable unless you resort to some kind of “racial” definition
I’ve read quite widely in this area and my punt is that there are three broadly defined races which can be roughly differentiated - African, Indo-European, East Asian. And possibly a fourth: Australasian. There are a zillion overlaps, contradictions, anomalies - where do you put the San of the Kalahari, indigenous Americans, Ashkenazi Jews, Emma Raducanu?
But all these complexities and awkward questions do not mean the concept of race is entirely constructed by society. It plainly is not. It exists biologically and it is ALSO a social construct
Amerindians? Or are they Indo-European or East Asian?
Re: today's elections what is basic timetable for results? For example, will they start counting in Northern Ireland tonight OR wait until Friday?
Am guessing that returns from local elections in Britain will start trickling in around midnight? Specifically, what about London?
ALSO what are some good links for live blogs & results reporting?
Thanks in advance for your aid & assistance for your fellow PBer(s)!
N. Ireland is Friday. It's STV, a long count with multiple rounds, so needs a full day.
Same as in Republic. Sensible way to do it, election one day, counting the next.
Yours truly has observed plenty of elections, where election workers & administrators put in a full Election Day, and then some - and then work some more processing ballots & counting votes into the wee hours. NOT optimum from efficiency standpoint.
Whereas on the Emerald Isle, having the count the following day gives workers AND observers the opportunity to get a decent night's sleep between plunging into the vote counting bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.
In the USA counts go for weeks!
Though the French managed to count a whole country in a couple of hours a few weeks ago.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).
An aborigine from the Tiwi islands is clearly different from the average freckly Cornish housewife in a way that is not really explicable unless you resort to some kind of “racial” definition
I’ve read quite widely in this area and my punt is that there are three broadly defined races which can be roughly differentiated - African, Indo-European, East Asian. And possibly a fourth: Australasian. There are a zillion overlaps, contradictions, anomalies - where do you put the San of the Kalahari, indigenous Americans, Ashkenazi Jews, Emma Raducanu?
But all these complexities and awkward questions do not mean the concept of race is entirely constructed by society. It plainly is not. It exists biologically and it is ALSO a social construct
I don’t know enough to answer this question, but someone might. If you viewed the human species as we do animals, would we have sub species? By which I mean distinct populations that are related but can be differentiated.
Yes, we probably would. But people find the idea outrageously crude to the point of being racist in itself - the same way we feel if we talk of “different breeds” of humans like “breeds of dogs”, so the term is avoided. Probably rightly, this whole question is vexed enough already
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).
In Israel, there has been a massive amount of research into finding 'the Jewish gene'. That is, is there some gene (or set of genes) that can be used to discover if someone is (or isn't) Jewish.
To date, this has been a failure.
Actually, it's worse than that. They can easily separate (on average) Israeli Jew from Australians, Chinese, Brazilians, etc.
But what they haven't been able to do is to reliably differentiate between a Palestinian Arab and a Middle Eastern Jew.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).
An aborigine from the Tiwi islands is clearly different from the average freckly Cornish housewife in a way that is not really explicable unless you resort to some kind of “racial” definition
I’ve read quite widely in this area and my punt is that there are three broadly defined races which can be roughly differentiated - African, Indo-European, East Asian. And possibly a fourth: Australasian. There are a zillion overlaps, contradictions, anomalies - where do you put the San of the Kalahari, indigenous Americans, Ashkenazi Jews, Emma Raducanu?
But all these complexities and awkward questions do not mean the concept of race is entirely constructed by society. It plainly is not. It exists biologically and it is ALSO a social construct
I don’t know enough to answer this question, but someone might. If you viewed the human species as we do animals, would we have sub species? By which I mean distinct populations that are related but can be differentiated.
Yes, we probably would. But people find the idea outrageously crude to the point of being racist in itself - the same way we feel if we talk of “different breeds” of humans like “breeds of dogs”, so the term is avoided. Probably rightly, this whole question is vexed enough already
We also showed that the genetic variation between dog breeds is much greater than the variation within breeds. Between-breed variation is estimated at 27.5 percent. By comparison, genetic variation between human populations is only 5.4 percent.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).
An aborigine from the Tiwi islands is clearly different from the average freckly Cornish housewife in a way that is not really explicable unless you resort to some kind of “racial” definition
I’ve read quite widely in this area and my punt is that there are three broadly defined races which can be roughly differentiated - African, Indo-European, East Asian. And possibly a fourth: Australasian. There are a zillion overlaps, contradictions, anomalies - where do you put the San of the Kalahari, indigenous Americans, Ashkenazi Jews, Emma Raducanu?
But all these complexities and awkward questions do not mean the concept of race is entirely constructed by society. It plainly is not. It exists biologically and it is ALSO a social construct
I don’t know enough to answer this question, but someone might. If you viewed the human species as we do animals, would we have sub species? By which I mean distinct populations that are related but can be differentiated.
Bit tricky ab initio, as we have various degrees of interblends of other species of Homo - Neandertal, Denisovan ...
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).
An aborigine from the Tiwi islands is clearly different from the average freckly Cornish housewife in a way that is not really explicable unless you resort to some kind of “racial” definition
I’ve read quite widely in this area and my punt is that there are three broadly defined races which can be roughly differentiated - African, Indo-European, East Asian. And possibly a fourth: Australasian. There are a zillion overlaps, contradictions, anomalies - where do you put the San of the Kalahari, indigenous Americans, Ashkenazi Jews, Emma Raducanu?
But all these complexities and awkward questions do not mean the concept of race is entirely constructed by society. It plainly is not. It exists biologically and it is ALSO a social construct
They're clearly different in the same way as a blonde is clearly different from a brunette, or a tall person is clearly different to a short one, or a fat person is clearly different to a skinny one.
Doesn't mean there's a serious difference if you haven't been brought up to see a difference.
Will be off to vote in a while with Mrs Stodge, who doesn't like going near political people accompanied (which is entirely understandable).
At lunchtime, I walked past a couple of my local polling stations. In Newham, there's no telling because no one dies any meaningful canvassing. Party representatives stand outside each polling station seeking to accost the poor voter on their way in.
At my local polling station, representatives of the Labour and Conservative parties quickly fled as I heaved into view (I have that effect on representatives of the duopoly whose activists don't like arguing with ordinary electors and retreat), The Independent (actually Newham Socialist Labour) candidate's man had a brave attempt at taking me on.
Having asserted he was the only genuine Independent, he then admitted his man was ex-Labour. I challenged him on the commitment to freezing the Council Tax and asked him what services he'd cut. I was told the pledges on the leaflet were "a wish list" to which my response was "if I stood on a platform of ending poverty and hunger, would you vote for me?".
The other thing I couldn't understand was the Independent had two representatives at each polling station but only one name on the ballot paper - why not stand more candidates to get a proper presence on the Council? By then, the poor man was looking terrified so I told him he'd probably get one of my three votes (why not?) and left him in peace.
My tasks tonight are to vote and get Mrs Stodge home safely from all the democratic unpleasantness.
Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
Yup. We have come a long way from a competent media doing its job. Call me old fashioned but I do like to at least start with indisputable facts.
The media took six months to discover reporting day vs day-of statistics, during COVID.
Gell-Mann Amnesia.....
And don’t get me started on asking any journalist to manage basic maths when discussing percentages - e.g. percentage point rises versus percentage rises, or basic compound interest.
You expect all those liberal arts majors that dominate the MSM, to be numerate?
The really, really annoying thing, is that there are some good scientific journalists out there, it’s just that they barely get used by the major TV news channels.
The important news is too important to be left to subject matter specialists.
The Cult of The Generalist.
The political journalists were much more pro lockdown than the science journalists. No wonder the latter were marginalised.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?
You need to think about post-colonial societies in particular, and why it might be deemed important and uncontroversial to maintain special status (or protection) for indigenous peoples.
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.
And is it even still fit for purpose?
The way the government is undermining it, you do question it.
A direct line can be traced from Sinn Féin’s performance today and that vote in 2016 which I keep banging on about.
The problems of Northern Ireland require everyone to compromise and understand each other. It’s been sad to see it used as a political tool over the past six years, with little regard given to those who live there.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).
In Israel, there has been a massive amount of research into finding 'the Jewish gene'. That is, is there some gene (or set of genes) that can be used to discover if someone is (or isn't) Jewish.
To date, this has been a failure.
Actually, it's worse than that. They can easily separate (on average) Israeli Jew from Australians, Chinese, Brazilians, etc.
But what they haven't been able to do is to reliably differentiate between a Palestinian Arab and a Middle Eastern Jew.
That’s hilarious and also predictable: they are so obviously the same people. Semitic
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
Agyemang C, Bhopal R, Bruijnzeels M. Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2005 Dec 1;59(12):1014-8.
And:
Chowkwanyun M, Reed Jr AL. Racial health disparities and Covid-19—caution and context. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020 May 6
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).
An aborigine from the Tiwi islands is clearly different from the average freckly Cornish housewife in a way that is not really explicable unless you resort to some kind of “racial” definition
I’ve read quite widely in this area and my punt is that there are three broadly defined races which can be roughly differentiated - African, Indo-European, East Asian. And possibly a fourth: Australasian. There are a zillion overlaps, contradictions, anomalies - where do you put the San of the Kalahari, indigenous Americans, Ashkenazi Jews, Emma Raducanu?
But all these complexities and awkward questions do not mean the concept of race is entirely constructed by society. It plainly is not. It exists biologically and it is ALSO a social construct
I don’t know enough to answer this question, but someone might. If you viewed the human species as we do animals, would we have sub species? By which I mean distinct populations that are related but can be differentiated.
No. We are a very genetically homogenous species. Species with sub-species show way more variation.
I’ve read quite widely in this area and my punt is that there are three broadly defined races which can be roughly differentiated - African, Indo-European, East Asian. And possibly a fourth: Australasian.
Just to be crystal clear, that right there is racist nonsense.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).
An aborigine from the Tiwi islands is clearly different from the average freckly Cornish housewife in a way that is not really explicable unless you resort to some kind of “racial” definition
I’ve read quite widely in this area and my punt is that there are three broadly defined races which can be roughly differentiated - African, Indo-European, East Asian. And possibly a fourth: Australasian. There are a zillion overlaps, contradictions, anomalies - where do you put the San of the Kalahari, indigenous Americans, Ashkenazi Jews, Emma Raducanu?
But all these complexities and awkward questions do not mean the concept of race is entirely constructed by society. It plainly is not. It exists biologically and it is ALSO a social construct
I don’t know enough to answer this question, but someone might. If you viewed the human species as we do animals, would we have sub species? By which I mean distinct populations that are related but can be differentiated.
No. We are a very genetically homogenous species. Species with sub-species show way more variation.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).
An aborigine from the Tiwi islands is clearly different from the average freckly Cornish housewife in a way that is not really explicable unless you resort to some kind of “racial” definition
I’ve read quite widely in this area and my punt is that there are three broadly defined races which can be roughly differentiated - African, Indo-European, East Asian. And possibly a fourth: Australasian. There are a zillion overlaps, contradictions, anomalies - where do you put the San of the Kalahari, indigenous Americans, Ashkenazi Jews, Emma Raducanu?
But all these complexities and awkward questions do not mean the concept of race is entirely constructed by society. It plainly is not. It exists biologically and it is ALSO a social construct
They're clearly different in the same way as a blonde is clearly different from a brunette, or a tall person is clearly different to a short one, or a fat person is clearly different to a skinny one.
Doesn't mean there's a serious difference if you haven't been brought up to see a difference.
Which is precisely why "race is a social construct" logically leads to the best way to eliminate racism being to eliminate the perception of race - not to judge everyone primarily by their immutable characteristics.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
Agyemang C, Bhopal R, Bruijnzeels M. Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2005 Dec 1;59(12):1014-8.
And:
Chowkwanyun M, Reed Jr AL. Racial health disparities and Covid-19—caution and context. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020 May 6
... for rebuttals.
Lol
I’m intrigued (to an extent) by people like you. Do you honestly think it advances your argument or makes you look superior to just shout “racist” all time? Don’t you ever consider it might have diminishing effect, simply because you hand it out so much?
Re: today's elections what is basic timetable for results? For example, will they start counting in Northern Ireland tonight OR wait until Friday?
Am guessing that returns from local elections in Britain will start trickling in around midnight? Specifically, what about London?
ALSO what are some good links for live blogs & results reporting?
Thanks in advance for your aid & assistance for your fellow PBer(s)!
N. Ireland is Friday. It's STV, a long count with multiple rounds, so needs a full day.
Same as in Republic. Sensible way to do it, election one day, counting the next.
Yours truly has observed plenty of elections, where election workers & administrators put in a full Election Day, and then some - and then work some more processing ballots & counting votes into the wee hours. NOT optimum from efficiency standpoint.
Whereas on the Emerald Isle, having the count the following day gives workers AND observers the opportunity to get a decent night's sleep between plunging into the vote counting bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.
In the USA counts go for weeks!
Though the French managed to count a whole country in a couple of hours a few weeks ago.
With one race on the ballot paper, correct?
We do have quaint tradition in USA of waiting until all the valid votes are counted and counts checked BEFORE announcing result.
Biggest problem in counts NOT concluded on the night, is hectoring journos and hysterical punters. Or visa versa.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
Agyemang C, Bhopal R, Bruijnzeels M. Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2005 Dec 1;59(12):1014-8.
And:
Chowkwanyun M, Reed Jr AL. Racial health disparities and Covid-19—caution and context. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020 May 6
... for rebuttals.
Lol
I’m intrigued (to an extent) by people like you. Do you honestly think it advances your argument or makes you look superior to just shout “racist” all time? Don’t you ever consider it might have diminishing effect, simply because you hand it out so much?
Was it yesterday that you accused Travellers of being genetically inferior? Or was that the day before?
Today, you have claimed humans have different sub-species, in contradiction to all known genetic studies.
You are being racist. I doubt you're going to stop. I'm not trying to persuade you or argue with you: that seems like a waste of time. I just hope that other people reading your nonsense are not taken in by your faux confidence and somehow imagine that you know what you are talking about.
Well I just did something rather novel. I voted Labour for the first time in my life.
No love of the party generally, but I cannot bring myself to vote Tory whilst the government is such a cluster****. Labour honestly seem like the better option right now and that’s something I didn’t think I’d hear myself ever say. Funny old world.
I votd Labour for the first time ever, because there was no libdem standing, probably a good thing as a split vote would probably let the tory in.
I recall asking on here a while back, how many PBers have actually observed their local election process.
Number told of their experiences canvassing and otherwise campaigning for candidates.
Very few had actually observed ballot processing and vote counting in person. Which is too bad, as for one thing, increases ones respect for election workers.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
Agyemang C, Bhopal R, Bruijnzeels M. Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2005 Dec 1;59(12):1014-8.
And:
Chowkwanyun M, Reed Jr AL. Racial health disparities and Covid-19—caution and context. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020 May 6
... for rebuttals.
Lol
I’m intrigued (to an extent) by people like you. Do you honestly think it advances your argument or makes you look superior to just shout “racist” all time? Don’t you ever consider it might have diminishing effect, simply because you hand it out so much?
Was it yesterday that you accused Travellers of being genetically inferior? Or was that the day before?
Today, you have claimed humans have different sub-species, in contradiction to all known genetic studies.
You are being racist. I doubt you're going to stop. I'm not trying to persuade you or argue with you: that seems like a waste of time. I just hope that other people reading your nonsense are not taken in by your faux confidence and somehow imagine that you know what you are talking about.
“Was it yesterday that you accused Travellers of being genetically inferior? Or was that the day before?“
But I didn’t say that, did I? I asked why Traveller communities seemed to have a predisposition to fuck with/neglect their environment, and I asked whether it was cultural or genetic?
Anyone who has encountered Traveller communities will know that what I say is simply the case. Denying it is futile. It’s like denying Deep South Americans are more obese than most (which I also did recently). In neither situation am I claiming either community is “inferior”. Just pointing out an undeniable trait
Someone suggested that the reason for Traveller attitudes to waste/litter might be a cultural aversion to The Man, doing anything that looks like co-operation with society. That seems reasonable. So maybe not genetic, at most epigenetic and most likely cultural. Nurture not nature, not something that springs from a deeply rooted “nomadic” lifestyle
Don’t you claim to be some senior Woke academic at a shit university? Gawd elp the kids
I recall asking on here a while back, how many PBers have actually observed their local election process.
Number told of their experiences canvassing and otherwise campaigning for candidates.
Very few had actually observed ballot processing and vote counting in person. Which is too bad, as for one thing, increases ones respect for election workers.
I actually reflected on that as I voted as someone on PB pointed out how tricky it is earlier today.
Nevertheless I voted for every single candidate, spitefully swapping the order of candidates if the party had advised me to vote in a particular way.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
That's.... that's exactly what the article is about, you should read it. Reich develops therapies targeted by race. But the specific genetic markers that denote a race have close to hee-haw to do with what a lay person would describe as race (thus the Brazil-vs-USA dichotomy).
An aborigine from the Tiwi islands is clearly different from the average freckly Cornish housewife in a way that is not really explicable unless you resort to some kind of “racial” definition
I’ve read quite widely in this area and my punt is that there are three broadly defined races which can be roughly differentiated - African, Indo-European, East Asian. And possibly a fourth: Australasian. There are a zillion overlaps, contradictions, anomalies - where do you put the San of the Kalahari, indigenous Americans, Ashkenazi Jews, Emma Raducanu?
But all these complexities and awkward questions do not mean the concept of race is entirely constructed by society. It plainly is not. It exists biologically and it is ALSO a social construct
I don’t know enough to answer this question, but someone might. If you viewed the human species as we do animals, would we have sub species? By which I mean distinct populations that are related but can be differentiated.
No. We are a very genetically homogenous species. Species with sub-species show way more variation.
See my post at 1:51 above (US time)
"US time"? You, sir, are a typical self-centered, Eastern Seaboard establishmentarian time bandit!
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
Agyemang C, Bhopal R, Bruijnzeels M. Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2005 Dec 1;59(12):1014-8.
And:
Chowkwanyun M, Reed Jr AL. Racial health disparities and Covid-19—caution and context. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020 May 6
... for rebuttals.
Lol
I’m intrigued (to an extent) by people like you. Do you honestly think it advances your argument or makes you look superior to just shout “racist” all time? Don’t you ever consider it might have diminishing effect, simply because you hand it out so much?
Was it yesterday that you accused Travellers of being genetically inferior? Or was that the day before?
Today, you have claimed humans have different sub-species, in contradiction to all known genetic studies.
You are being racist. I doubt you're going to stop. I'm not trying to persuade you or argue with you: that seems like a waste of time. I just hope that other people reading your nonsense are not taken in by your faux confidence and somehow imagine that you know what you are talking about.
If we're going down the race/genetics rabbit-hole, allow me to introduce the ultimate inheritor species: the naked mole-rat.
A mammal which is cold-blooded, cannot feel pain, long-lived, and immune to cancer. Just don't look at one after a full meal....
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
Agyemang C, Bhopal R, Bruijnzeels M. Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2005 Dec 1;59(12):1014-8.
And:
Chowkwanyun M, Reed Jr AL. Racial health disparities and Covid-19—caution and context. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020 May 6
... for rebuttals.
Lol
I’m intrigued (to an extent) by people like you. Do you honestly think it advances your argument or makes you look superior to just shout “racist” all time? Don’t you ever consider it might have diminishing effect, simply because you hand it out so much?
Was it yesterday that you accused Travellers of being genetically inferior? Or was that the day before?
Today, you have claimed humans have different sub-species, in contradiction to all known genetic studies.
You are being racist. I doubt you're going to stop. I'm not trying to persuade you or argue with you: that seems like a waste of time. I just hope that other people reading your nonsense are not taken in by your faux confidence and somehow imagine that you know what you are talking about.
“Was it yesterday that you accused Travellers of being genetically inferior? Or was that the day before?“
But I didn’t say that, did I? I asked why Traveller communities seemed to have a predisposition to fuck with/neglect their environment, and I asked whether it was cultural or genetic?
Anyone who has encountered Traveller communities will know that what I say is simply the case. Denying it is futile. It’s like denying Deep South Americans are more obese than most (which I also did recently). In neither situation am I claiming either community is “inferior”. Just pointing out an undeniable trait
Someone suggested that the reason for Traveller attitudes to waste/litter might be a cultural aversion to The Man, doing anything that looks like co-operation with society. That seems reasonable. So maybe not genetic, at most epigenetic and most likely cultural. Nurture not nature, not something that springs from a deeply rooted “nomadic” lifestyle
Don’t you claim to be some senior Woke academic at a shit university? Gawd elp the kids
Cultural, obviously*, but I think some city-dwellers don't understand just how emotive an issue it is for people in rural areas. It should be discussed openly and fairly.
On your main point, race must be recognised, not least for the stark differences in the way people react to various medicines.
*Good episode of Mad Men where they dump all their litter after a picnic. Americans only stopped littering after a huge campaign against it relatively recently.
UkraineWorld @ukraine_world ⚡Sanctions from Russia will NOT be lifted without Ukraine's consent: Germany's chancellor Scholz told Stern magazine in an interview.
I recall asking on here a while back, how many PBers have actually observed their local election process.
Number told of their experiences canvassing and otherwise campaigning for candidates.
Very few had actually observed ballot processing and vote counting in person. Which is too bad, as for one thing, increases ones respect for election workers.
Lots of us will have done. What do you want to know?
I recall asking on here a while back, how many PBers have actually observed their local election process.
Number told of their experiences canvassing and otherwise campaigning for candidates.
Very few had actually observed ballot processing and vote counting in person. Which is too bad, as for one thing, increases ones respect for election workers.
I'd love to be a vote counter. I'd do it for free.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
It’s a realisation they came to after the Holocaust and Nazi race laws, when anything to do with “race” or “defining people by race” was considered highly offensive (very understandably) so they went way too far the other way and decided “all races are social constructs” - see the official 1945-46 UNESCO statements on race. They are politically motivated, not scientifically grounded. An early version of Woke, indeed - but after Hitler, no one was quibbling
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
Agyemang C, Bhopal R, Bruijnzeels M. Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2005 Dec 1;59(12):1014-8.
And:
Chowkwanyun M, Reed Jr AL. Racial health disparities and Covid-19—caution and context. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020 May 6
... for rebuttals.
Lol
I’m intrigued (to an extent) by people like you. Do you honestly think it advances your argument or makes you look superior to just shout “racist” all time? Don’t you ever consider it might have diminishing effect, simply because you hand it out so much?
Was it yesterday that you accused Travellers of being genetically inferior? Or was that the day before?
Today, you have claimed humans have different sub-species, in contradiction to all known genetic studies.
You are being racist. I doubt you're going to stop. I'm not trying to persuade you or argue with you: that seems like a waste of time. I just hope that other people reading your nonsense are not taken in by your faux confidence and somehow imagine that you know what you are talking about.
“Was it yesterday that you accused Travellers of being genetically inferior? Or was that the day before?“
But I didn’t say that, did I? I asked why Traveller communities seemed to have a predisposition to fuck with/neglect their environment, and I asked whether it was cultural or genetic?
Anyone who has encountered Traveller communities will know that what I say is simply the case. Denying it is futile. It’s like denying Deep South Americans are more obese than most (which I also did recently). In neither situation am I claiming either community is “inferior”. Just pointing out an undeniable trait
Someone suggested that the reason for Traveller attitudes to waste/litter might be a cultural aversion to The Man, doing anything that looks like co-operation with society. That seems reasonable. So maybe not genetic, at most epigenetic and most likely cultural. Nurture not nature, not something that springs from a deeply rooted “nomadic” lifestyle
Don’t you claim to be some senior Woke academic at a shit university? Gawd elp the kids
Cultural, obviously*, but I think some city-dwellers don't understand just how emotive an issue it is for people in rural areas. It should be discussed openly and fairly.
On your main point, race must be recognised, not least in the stark differences in the way people react to various medicines.
*Good episode of Mad Men where they dump all their litter after a picnic. Americans only stopped littering after a huge campaign against it relatively recently.
Differential occurrence to illnesses/responses to treatment doesn't require the existence of races - simply an uneven distribution of the relevant genetic element within Homo sapiens. For instance, I'm partly from NE Scotland by ancestry - so somewhat more susceptible to MS, and vastly more susceptible to sunbrun, skin cancer, etc.
I recall asking on here a while back, how many PBers have actually observed their local election process.
Number told of their experiences canvassing and otherwise campaigning for candidates.
Very few had actually observed ballot processing and vote counting in person. Which is too bad, as for one thing, increases ones respect for election workers.
Lots of us will have done. What do you want to know?
I recall asking on here a while back, how many PBers have actually observed their local election process.
Number told of their experiences canvassing and otherwise campaigning for candidates.
Very few had actually observed ballot processing and vote counting in person. Which is too bad, as for one thing, increases ones respect for election workers.
I'd love to be a vote counter. I'd do it for free.
It would interfere with your in-running betting opportunities though.
Fantastic news, I've often said we should limit the number of grammar school educated people at the elite universities.
Talented grammar school pupils should not be sidelined for the sake of improving diversity, elite universities have been told.
Professor Stephen Toope, the vice-chancellor of Cambridge, has said the university might introduce figures on grammar school recruitment because focusing on intake from state schools as a whole was not an effective indicator of wealth or social class.
Toope, a Canadian who leaves Cambridge this September, told The Times Education Commission on Tuesday that “substituting more grammar school students for students from independent schools” would not “accomplish widening participation goals”.
Boeing is moving its corporate headquarters from Chicago to Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC.
Considerable schadenfreude in Seattle, the FIRST city betrayed by Boeing's bean-counting, no-brains leadership.
I hadn't known that they had moved!!
I wonder if it has affected the Museum of Flight down East Marginal Way? (Had a great visit years back, esp. as the 247 dropped in on a visit and I was allowed to peek inside.)
Comments
All the boring things from electionologists have been pointing to a Meh result for the last two weeks to be honest. Maybe it’s just the set of elections this year following high tide for anti Tory vote last time they are up, it can’t just be as much fun as hoped?
Us Libdems can still have fun at Labours expense though, taking Hull off Starmer 😈
The Cult of The Generalist.
The problem is basic fact-checking has been binned.
The UK is not especially ethnically or religiously divided, nor is most of Western Europe.
Such division there is in the UK is mostly about national identity and can be addressed via devolution.
The notable exception is Catholics (and Protestants) in Northern Ireland where a bespoke arrangement has been painstakingly constructed.
Amazing if true, they don’t seem likely elderly liberal crypto-Tory nimbys in the East Riding.
But it is palpable nonsense. Races - ancestries - exist. They are extremely fuzzy at the edges, where one race blurs into the next, but then that is true of animal species
If races didn’t exist there wouldn’t be medical therapies aimed specifically at certain races, but there are
https://www.pharmacy.umn.edu/degrees-and-programs/postgraduate-pharmacy-residency-program/news-events-and-publications/curbside-consult-volume-17-issue-1-first-quarter-2019/best-two-drug-antihypertensive-combinations-black-african-patients
No love of the party generally, but I cannot bring myself to vote Tory whilst the government is such a cluster****. Labour honestly seem like the better option right now and that’s something I didn’t think I’d hear myself ever say. Funny old world.
A direct line can be traced from Sinn Féin’s performance today and that vote in 2016 which I keep banging on about.
Usually, in the non-democratic ones, they get some version of the "square peg, round hole" treatment.
The fact that if the Alliance comes second, then there is a problem, illustrates the comic nature of the system.
"To be sure, to be sure. But are you a Protestant Hindu or a Catholic Hindu?"
Welcome.
I was the only one there. Hmmmm.
Re: today's elections what is basic timetable for results? For example, will they start counting in Northern Ireland tonight OR wait until Friday?
Am guessing that returns from local elections in Britain will start trickling in around midnight? Specifically, what about London?
ALSO what are some good links for live blogs & results reporting?
Thanks in advance for your aid & assistance for your fellow PBer(s)!
2007: 26.2%
2011: 26.9%
2016: 24.0%
2017: 27.9%
The latest tracker poll has them on 26%. If anything stands out post-that-vote-in-2016, it's not Sinn Féin's performance but the growth of the Alliance.
Today’s update: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/05/brussels-refusing-access-data-could-solve-northern-ireland-protocol/
Interesting piece from Politico:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/05/biden-trump-rematch-00030250
We’re getting Hull!
We’re getting Hull!
We’re getting Hull!
I’ve had a nap this afternoon, so you can have unbroken MoonRabbit all the way through 😁
1) the Men* of Violence to collect their multiple 6 figure salaries in return for forgetting to actually murder their opponents.
2) Their "businesses" are carefully left untouched.
3) If they get a bit anti-agreement, then their "businesses" become fair game. See Slab Murphy.
*Very unrepresentative of women, the MoVs. Generally pretty... "Gammon" I think the PB term is.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/05/local-elections-2022-key-councils-to-watch-and-when-the-results-will-come-in
I notice they don't consider N Ireland to be "key".
Adds to my theory that the media establishment are going to be shocked at what the most significant story will be.
Yours truly has observed plenty of elections, where election workers & administrators put in a full Election Day, and then some - and then work some more processing ballots & counting votes into the wee hours. NOT optimum from efficiency standpoint.
Whereas on the Emerald Isle, having the count the following day gives workers AND observers the opportunity to get a decent night's sleep between plunging into the vote counting bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.
I’ve read quite widely in this area and my punt is that there are three broadly defined races which can be roughly differentiated - African, Indo-European, East Asian. And possibly a fourth: Australasian. There are a zillion overlaps, contradictions, anomalies - where do you put the San of the Kalahari, indigenous Americans, Ashkenazi Jews, Emma Raducanu?
But all these complexities and awkward questions do not mean the concept of race is entirely constructed by society. It plainly is not. It exists biologically and it is ALSO a social construct
“What is great to think, is that when as seems imminent, this conflict finishes”
How imminent does it seems now?
Potentially very fragile. And vulnerable to excessive external changes, or an unwillingness by larger groups to recognise minorities - which of course is as old as the hills. Or sometimes not.
I think the representation no longer matching the populations were one factor in the Lebanese Civil War, for example.
And the Socialists aren't going to play ball with Mélenchon's lot.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-socialists-fracture-as-party-veterans-reject-deal-with-radical-left-qbssdbcwz (£)
Though the French managed to count a whole country in a couple of hours a few weeks ago.
To date, this has been a failure.
Actually, it's worse than that. They can easily separate (on average) Israeli Jew from Australians, Chinese, Brazilians, etc.
But what they haven't been able to do is to reliably differentiate between a Palestinian Arab and a Middle Eastern Jew.
Doesn't mean there's a serious difference if you haven't been brought up to see a difference.
Will be off to vote in a while with Mrs Stodge, who doesn't like going near political people accompanied (which is entirely understandable).
At lunchtime, I walked past a couple of my local polling stations. In Newham, there's no telling because no one dies any meaningful canvassing. Party representatives stand outside each polling station seeking to accost the poor voter on their way in.
At my local polling station, representatives of the Labour and Conservative parties quickly fled as I heaved into view (I have that effect on representatives of the duopoly whose activists don't like arguing with ordinary electors and retreat), The Independent (actually Newham Socialist Labour) candidate's man had a brave attempt at taking me on.
Having asserted he was the only genuine Independent, he then admitted his man was ex-Labour. I challenged him on the commitment to freezing the Council Tax and asked him what services he'd cut. I was told the pledges on the leaflet were "a wish list" to which my response was "if I stood on a platform of ending poverty and hunger, would you vote for me?".
The other thing I couldn't understand was the Independent had two representatives at each polling station but only one name on the ballot paper - why not stand more candidates to get a proper presence on the Council? By then, the poor man was looking terrified so I told him he'd probably get one of my three votes (why not?) and left him in peace.
My tasks tonight are to vote and get Mrs Stodge home safely from all the democratic unpleasantness.
Three guesses as to how I voted
https://twitter.com/KonotopW/status/1512833308492804099
See:
Agyemang C, Bhopal R, Bruijnzeels M. Negro, Black, Black African, African Caribbean, African
American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health arena in the 21st century.
Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2005 Dec 1;59(12):1014-8.
And:
Chowkwanyun M, Reed Jr AL. Racial health disparities and Covid-19—caution and context. New
England Journal of Medicine. 2020 May 6
... for rebuttals.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17136
Strangely enough, West Yorkshire looks remarkably like Lancashire ... (Ducks and takes cover)
Instead, they are desperate to talk about anything else, to disguise their total lack of ideas.
I’m intrigued (to an extent) by people like you. Do you honestly think it advances your argument or makes you look superior to just shout “racist” all time? Don’t you ever consider it might have diminishing effect, simply because you hand it out so much?
We do have quaint tradition in USA of waiting until all the valid votes are counted and counts checked BEFORE announcing result.
Biggest problem in counts NOT concluded on the night, is hectoring journos and hysterical punters. Or visa versa.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15p_DZ1ltk9XStlEQHy-V3SaLCOWU_6j17jZ8sMvgRl4/edit#gid=0
Unless they are the aforementioned West Yorkshire / Lancastrian bantustan, hemmed into the “wrong” side of the Pennines.
Also, turns out the Orkney is the British “Papua New Guinea”
Eric Lee
@erjlee
·
4h
Fencing, same as the ones from after Jan. 6, were put up around SCOTUS overnight
https://twitter.com/erjlee/status/1522209584722726912
Today, you have claimed humans have different sub-species, in contradiction to all known genetic studies.
You are being racist. I doubt you're going to stop. I'm not trying to persuade you or argue with you: that seems like a waste of time. I just hope that other people reading your nonsense are not taken in by your faux confidence and somehow imagine that you know what you are talking about.
Number told of their experiences canvassing and otherwise campaigning for candidates.
Very few had actually observed ballot processing and vote counting in person. Which is too bad, as for one thing, increases ones respect for election workers.
I’d be delighted to see Hull go yellow.
Even more so if the LDs take Westminster, and their sister-party the Alliance come second in NI. Both are admittedly, stretch targets.
But I didn’t say that, did I? I asked why Traveller communities seemed to have a predisposition to fuck with/neglect their environment, and I asked whether it was cultural or genetic?
Anyone who has encountered Traveller communities will know that what I say is simply the case. Denying it is futile. It’s like denying Deep South Americans are more obese than most (which I also did recently). In neither situation am I claiming either community is “inferior”. Just pointing out an undeniable trait
Someone suggested that the reason for Traveller attitudes to waste/litter might be a cultural aversion to The Man, doing anything that looks like co-operation with society. That seems reasonable. So maybe not genetic, at most epigenetic and most likely cultural. Nurture not nature, not something that springs from a deeply rooted “nomadic” lifestyle
Don’t you claim to be some senior Woke academic at a shit university? Gawd elp the kids
Nevertheless I voted for every single candidate, spitefully swapping the order of candidates if the party had advised me to vote in a particular way.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/05/a-heart-to-heart-with-russias-elites-a77587
A mammal which is cold-blooded, cannot feel pain, long-lived, and immune to cancer. Just don't look at one after a full meal....
https://twitter.com/mckinleaf/status/1521625152743694351
On your main point, race must be recognised, not least for the stark differences in the way people react to various medicines.
*Good episode of Mad Men where they dump all their litter after a picnic. Americans only stopped littering after a huge campaign against it relatively recently.
UkraineWorld
@ukraine_world
⚡Sanctions from Russia will NOT be lifted without Ukraine's consent: Germany's chancellor Scholz told Stern magazine in an interview.
https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1522270992353177600
Considerable schadenfreude in Seattle, the FIRST city betrayed by Boeing's bean-counting, no-brains leadership.
Ridiculous system.
Edit: I should have said geographically uneven.
Talented grammar school pupils should not be sidelined for the sake of improving diversity, elite universities have been told.
Professor Stephen Toope, the vice-chancellor of Cambridge, has said the university might introduce figures on grammar school recruitment because focusing on intake from state schools as a whole was not an effective indicator of wealth or social class.
Toope, a Canadian who leaves Cambridge this September, told The Times Education Commission on Tuesday that “substituting more grammar school students for students from independent schools” would not “accomplish widening participation goals”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dont-sideline-grammar-school-pupils-top-universities-told-pzrc333x6
What could possibly go wrong?
I wonder if it has affected the Museum of Flight down East Marginal Way? (Had a great visit years back, esp. as the 247 dropped in on a visit and I was allowed to peek inside.)