Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Brexit behaving badly – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,223
    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    Mrs Foxy does...

    Fortunately a coat of paint lasts well, and even expensive paint doesn't cost much.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    Some do. But fewer than 2 years ago:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/13/farrow-ball-sales-slump-home-decorating-boom-ends/
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,681

    So Greece has taken Rishi Sunak’s snub relatively well in the round 👀 😂



    https://twitter.com/stuzi_pants/status/1730272251713364314/photo/1

    With Rishi being so touchy these days, a declaration of war seems to be a proportionate response. A victory against Greece/EU/Nato might pick up some votes too.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,699
    edited November 2023
    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Surely everyone just colour matches the F&B colours? Brewers on Queens Road will do it with Johnstones trade paints. They go on easier than F&B anyway.
    F&B colours are great though, they've really tapped into some primal anxiety in the British middle class brain and monetised it.
    Our local Johnstones matched a F&B shade for me back in 2013, so if Mansfield could do it back then, one hopes it has reached everywhere else by now :smile: .

    Surely people who use 'real' F&B are chavs with an upgrade, like Virgin Premium Economy?
    Yes, the Brewers here have the colour codes for F&B paint on a handy cribsheet so they can mix them up in Dulux. Dulux is quality paint, more durable and easier to apply, whereas F&B always seems to need another coat when you see it in daylight. But if you’re prepared to go over everything four times, you can’t beat their fine matt chalky finish. And their website makes putting together interesting contrasting or complementary colour schemes really easy.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,402
    isam said:

    ...

    kle4 said:

    Farage winning the Mirror's poll on who should win the jungle:

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/shock-poll-results-sees-nigel-31565775

    Do they think he gets to stay there if he does?
    I think he's proven to be quite likable and normal.
    It's not as though I'm a fan of Farage's, but I don't think on a personal level he has historically come across as that objectionable. Political views people will disagree about, some despise him for that, but he's personable and his success in building and maintaining his profile suggests he engages well with people who are open to his messaging.
    He's always benefitted from exposure (such as the debates with Nick Clegg). People who seek to stitch him up (as there is a little evidence that ITV have tried to do) need to remember that. I did 'warn' them (as if they read me on PB) that it would be very difficult to do that as Farage is a very wily operator. And ITV, with the best will in the world, aren't.
    Best example of that are indeed the debates with Clegg; most politico’s declared them a defeat for Farage I seem to remember. Would be interesting to re-read the PB threads
    I rewatched them - admittedly after a few drinks - a couple of years ago, and I was staggered by how superficial they were.

    They contained much that was - at best - wildly inaccurate or impossible to judge. (Highlights being Farage's claim that 70% of UK legislation was written in Brussels and Clegg's claim that Brexit could cost 20% of GDP.)

    I would hope that if either of them watched them now, then they would be ashamed. Sadly, I suspect neither would.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,681
    Witchell copped out of naming the Royal naughties. He even edited Morgan before the names were uttered. What a t***!
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,788
    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    kle4 said:

    Farage winning the Mirror's poll on who should win the jungle:

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/shock-poll-results-sees-nigel-31565775

    Do they think he gets to stay there if he does?
    I think he's proven to be quite likable and normal.
    It's not as though I'm a fan of Farage's, but I don't think on a personal level he has historically come across as that objectionable. Political views people will disagree about, some despise him for that, but he's personable and his success in building and maintaining his profile suggests he engages well with people who are open to his messaging.
    He's always benefitted from exposure (such as the debates with Nick Clegg). People who seek to stitch him up (as there is a little evidence that ITV have tried to do) need to remember that. I did 'warn' them (as if they read me on PB) that it would be very difficult to do that as Farage is a very wily operator. And ITV, with the best will in the world, aren't.
    Best example of that are indeed the debates with Clegg; most politico’s declared them a defeat for Farage I seem to remember. Would be interesting to re-read the PB threads
    I rewatched them - admittedly after a few drinks - a couple of years ago, and I was staggered by how superficial they were.

    They contained much that was - at best - wildly inaccurate or impossible to judge. (Highlights being Farage's claim that 70% of UK legislation was written in Brussels and Clegg's claim that Brexit could cost 20% of GDP.)

    I would hope that if either of them watched them now, then they would be ashamed. Sadly, I suspect neither would.
    I don’t think Farage would resile from the 70% claim.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,402
    edited November 2023
    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    Does structural racism exist in places?

    Yes, of course.

    (See the story of the town in the US that elected the black Mayor, and then the outgoing administration went to extraordinary lengths to try and stop him taking up his position for a particularly egregious example.)

    Are humans hardwired to trust and like people who are superficially (accent, skin color, etc) similar to them?

    Yes, hugely.

    Does that mean that white people are particularly racist?

    No.

    Is skin colour the primary determinant of your life outcomes?

    Nope. In addition to your drive and talents, your chances of achieving success in life are influences by many, many privileges and prejudices. And reducing it all to a single factor of "skin color" is incredibly dangerous.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    isam said:

    ...

    kle4 said:

    Farage winning the Mirror's poll on who should win the jungle:

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/shock-poll-results-sees-nigel-31565775

    Do they think he gets to stay there if he does?
    I think he's proven to be quite likable and normal.
    It's not as though I'm a fan of Farage's, but I don't think on a personal level he has historically come across as that objectionable. Political views people will disagree about, some despise him for that, but he's personable and his success in building and maintaining his profile suggests he engages well with people who are open to his messaging.
    He's always benefitted from exposure (such as the debates with Nick Clegg). People who seek to stitch him up (as there is a little evidence that ITV have tried to do) need to remember that. I did 'warn' them (as if they read me on PB) that it would be very difficult to do that as Farage is a very wily operator. And ITV, with the best will in the world, aren't.
    Best example of that are indeed the debates with Clegg; most politico’s declared them a defeat for Farage I seem to remember. Would be interesting to re-read the PB threads
    Clegg back then was in the same position as Sunak now. Almost universally unpopular. Him debating Farage was in hindsight a gift for Farage. Rather like Sunak and Co supporting Brexit now is a gift for rejoin.

    Clegg always talked a good game but by that point he was a liability.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,500
    isam said:

    ...

    kle4 said:

    Farage winning the Mirror's poll on who should win the jungle:

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/shock-poll-results-sees-nigel-31565775

    Do they think he gets to stay there if he does?
    I think he's proven to be quite likable and normal.
    It's not as though I'm a fan of Farage's, but I don't think on a personal level he has historically come across as that objectionable. Political views people will disagree about, some despise him for that, but he's personable and his success in building and maintaining his profile suggests he engages well with people who are open to his messaging.
    He's always benefitted from exposure (such as the debates with Nick Clegg). People who seek to stitch him up (as there is a little evidence that ITV have tried to do) need to remember that. I did 'warn' them (as if they read me on PB) that it would be very difficult to do that as Farage is a very wily operator. And ITV, with the best will in the world, aren't.
    Best example of that are indeed the debates with Clegg; most politico’s declared them a defeat for Farage I seem to remember. Would be interesting to re-read the PB threads
    I have good news for you
    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/03/26/the-post-nick-v-nigel-debate-reaction/

    I don't seem to have watched most of the debate and so engaged in semantic arguments with people about whether or not the event mattered at all.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,340
    Sandpit said:

    A lovely obituary, that focuses on Darling’s key role in the 2014 referendum.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/30/alistair-darling-put-country-before-party-and-saved-the-un/
    “It says a great deal about the man that across the disparate parties and interests of Better Together, there was virtually unanimous support for Darling’s appointment as chair. To his efforts can be attributed the defeat of the nationalist project (if not the nationalists themselves) and the continuation of the world’s most successful political, economic and social Union.”

    Pass the sick bucket
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,788
    TimS said:

    isam said:

    ...

    kle4 said:

    Farage winning the Mirror's poll on who should win the jungle:

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/shock-poll-results-sees-nigel-31565775

    Do they think he gets to stay there if he does?
    I think he's proven to be quite likable and normal.
    It's not as though I'm a fan of Farage's, but I don't think on a personal level he has historically come across as that objectionable. Political views people will disagree about, some despise him for that, but he's personable and his success in building and maintaining his profile suggests he engages well with people who are open to his messaging.
    He's always benefitted from exposure (such as the debates with Nick Clegg). People who seek to stitch him up (as there is a little evidence that ITV have tried to do) need to remember that. I did 'warn' them (as if they read me on PB) that it would be very difficult to do that as Farage is a very wily operator. And ITV, with the best will in the world, aren't.
    Best example of that are indeed the debates with Clegg; most politico’s declared them a defeat for Farage I seem to remember. Would be interesting to re-read the PB threads
    Clegg back then was in the same position as Sunak now. Almost universally unpopular. Him debating Farage was in hindsight a gift for Farage. Rather like Sunak and Co supporting Brexit now is a gift for rejoin.

    Clegg always talked a good game but by that point he was a liability.
    He was also crap. Patronising, lost his temper. Started going on about W. G. Grace. Came over as the silly lightweight twat he is. Farage had him for breakfast.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    kle4 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    I actually can believe that. But I don't think it requires acceptance of every claim of structural racism, which seems to be all encompassing on pretty much every issue, or that the focus placed on racial minutaie and blame casting of people down the generations, is a good way to combat that structural effect even if people accept it is there.
    I can understand the frustration with people who claim that everything’s sorted so what’s the fuss. Same with gender politics. But the problem is what’s the end game? Surely an end game that’s colour blind is better than one where racial difference is everything.

    This is another example of American hang ups infecting British culture because we happen to speak the same language and use the same apps.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,339

    Sad to say, considering it was 7 years ago, but this thread header and the associated polling simply repeats the thread header I posted on here the day after the Brexit vote.

    Immediately before the vote, yougov polling showed that a substantial minority of Leave voters (enough to make it a majority of the overall poll) would favour joining EFTA and the EEA and so retaining freedom of movement. It should have been taken seriously as an option at the time rather than rattling on about the 'purity' of Brexit.

    I lay the blame for this almost entirely at the feet of the succession of post Brexit governing parties with a small but significant dollop of blame being thrownvat those Remainer MPs who were only interested in overturning the vote.

    I still maintain that this is where we will eventually land but we will have wasted years to get there.

    Indeed

    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/26/richard-tyndall-on-the-exit-strategy/
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,402

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    ...

    kle4 said:

    Farage winning the Mirror's poll on who should win the jungle:

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/shock-poll-results-sees-nigel-31565775

    Do they think he gets to stay there if he does?
    I think he's proven to be quite likable and normal.
    It's not as though I'm a fan of Farage's, but I don't think on a personal level he has historically come across as that objectionable. Political views people will disagree about, some despise him for that, but he's personable and his success in building and maintaining his profile suggests he engages well with people who are open to his messaging.
    He's always benefitted from exposure (such as the debates with Nick Clegg). People who seek to stitch him up (as there is a little evidence that ITV have tried to do) need to remember that. I did 'warn' them (as if they read me on PB) that it would be very difficult to do that as Farage is a very wily operator. And ITV, with the best will in the world, aren't.
    Best example of that are indeed the debates with Clegg; most politico’s declared them a defeat for Farage I seem to remember. Would be interesting to re-read the PB threads
    I rewatched them - admittedly after a few drinks - a couple of years ago, and I was staggered by how superficial they were.

    They contained much that was - at best - wildly inaccurate or impossible to judge. (Highlights being Farage's claim that 70% of UK legislation was written in Brussels and Clegg's claim that Brexit could cost 20% of GDP.)

    I would hope that if either of them watched them now, then they would be ashamed. Sadly, I suspect neither would.
    I don’t think Farage would resile from the 70% claim.
    It simply isn't true, though.

    The House of Commons library - back in 2010 - reported "6.8% of primary legislation and 14.1% of secondary legislation from 1997 to 2009 were EU-related."
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,500

    So Greece has taken Rishi Sunak’s snub relatively well in the round 👀 😂



    https://twitter.com/stuzi_pants/status/1730272251713364314/photo/1

    With Rishi being so touchy these days, a declaration of war seems to be a proportionate response. A victory against Greece/EU/Nato might pick up some votes too.
    It's like is genuinely using the Yes Minister 6 options for diplomatic reaction, but always one option further along than what should be chosen.

    1. Do nothing
    2. Issue statement
    3. Lodge protest
    4. Cut off aid
    5. Break off relations
    6. Declare war
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,598
    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    They do. Elephant's Breath. It's ubiquitous. Very nice too.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140

    TimS said:

    isam said:

    ...

    kle4 said:

    Farage winning the Mirror's poll on who should win the jungle:

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/shock-poll-results-sees-nigel-31565775

    Do they think he gets to stay there if he does?
    I think he's proven to be quite likable and normal.
    It's not as though I'm a fan of Farage's, but I don't think on a personal level he has historically come across as that objectionable. Political views people will disagree about, some despise him for that, but he's personable and his success in building and maintaining his profile suggests he engages well with people who are open to his messaging.
    He's always benefitted from exposure (such as the debates with Nick Clegg). People who seek to stitch him up (as there is a little evidence that ITV have tried to do) need to remember that. I did 'warn' them (as if they read me on PB) that it would be very difficult to do that as Farage is a very wily operator. And ITV, with the best will in the world, aren't.
    Best example of that are indeed the debates with Clegg; most politico’s declared them a defeat for Farage I seem to remember. Would be interesting to re-read the PB threads
    Clegg back then was in the same position as Sunak now. Almost universally unpopular. Him debating Farage was in hindsight a gift for Farage. Rather like Sunak and Co supporting Brexit now is a gift for rejoin.

    Clegg always talked a good game but by that point he was a liability.
    He was also crap. Patronising, lost his temper. Started going on about W. G. Grace. Came over as the silly lightweight twat he is. Farage had him for breakfast.
    I appreciate your objective unbiased opinion!
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,551
    Good to see the Kent news websites going big on the sad passing of Kentish Man and son of Tonbridge Shane MacGowan tonight.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,500
    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    I actually can believe that. But I don't think it requires acceptance of every claim of structural racism, which seems to be all encompassing on pretty much every issue, or that the focus placed on racial minutaie and blame casting of people down the generations, is a good way to combat that structural effect even if people accept it is there.
    I can understand the frustration with people who claim that everything’s sorted so what’s the fuss. Same with gender politics. But the problem is what’s the end game? Surely an end game that’s colour blind is better than one where racial difference is everything.

    This is another example of American hang ups infecting British culture because we happen to speak the same language and use the same apps.
    I've not yet read Tomiwa Owolade's This is not America: Why Black lives in Britain matter, but I think anecdotally at times our language and protest culture can borrow a bit too directly at times from across the pond.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,340
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    Quite a lot of girls in Glasgow appear to want to be orange, and seem to have achieved it. Oh, and 45 as well of course.
    Not just the ladies. One thinks of a certain left-wing politician.
    No better in England , have you ever seen the state of the ones at Ascot , Aintree etc. Being orange is far from their worst attribute.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,402
    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    I actually can believe that. But I don't think it requires acceptance of every claim of structural racism, which seems to be all encompassing on pretty much every issue, or that the focus placed on racial minutaie and blame casting of people down the generations, is a good way to combat that structural effect even if people accept it is there.
    I can understand the frustration with people who claim that everything’s sorted so what’s the fuss. Same with gender politics. But the problem is what’s the end game? Surely an end game that’s colour blind is better than one where racial difference is everything.

    This is another example of American hang ups infecting British culture because we happen to speak the same language and use the same apps.
    This is absolutely spot on.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,109
    edited November 2023
    Mr Trump is getting spanked today, I see.

    Someone (@KitchenCabinet?) commented a few days ago that the restricted order preventing him attacking new York Court staff had been overturned when it had been paused. Well, it's been put back on by the Appellant Court (middle level), and the full Appeal against it won't be heard before the trial is finished.

    I think his latest fishing expedition to try and argue that far more DoJ staff are part of the team in the Washington election fraud case (the Special Prosecutor's team are separate), which would allow him to clog up that case via far larger and wider 'discovery' case, has also been rejected.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,340
    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    My wife insists on it
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,331

    MattW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    With so much sadness* and death, it's time to fire up the most perfect movie soundtrack of all time.

    Trainspotting. 14 perfect songs.

    Embrace it people.

    (Bizarrely, it' not available on Spotify. So here's a playlist someone created on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPAfi7VbU4g&list=PLkdH33fATc7ugUi9E3Y7rXGNQlBp9E5RG&ab_channel=BaseAllMighty)

    * Not Henry Kissinger, obviously

    Best movie soundtrack of all time - at least for those of us who were 18 in 1996.
    Wasn't bad for those of us who were 21!
    Those of us who were 22, on the other hand, found it far too difficult to comprehend.
    I was 23. A younger friend was really raving about wanting to watch it, but I just thought: "Why would I want to sit in the cinema watching the sad antics of a load of druggies? I lived in London for five years..."
    Wait. You still haven't seen it?
    Actually, I haven't. Not particularly interested in it; saw enough of that sort of world in London. And, to think of it, before.

    There was a drug problem even in a tiny town like provincial Uttoxeter, in the late 1980s, at least.

    I've seen loads of clips, and I daresay it's well-acted and well-written, but it's just not my cup of tea. Or syringe of heroin.

    Perhaps I missed out on something. But there are certain types of films I just don't like. Courtroom dramas bore me (sorry, all PB's lawyers). Mafia films ditto. Though to be fair, there are exceptions in each category.
    I'd think of PB circa 2000 as being more Layer Cake than Trainspotting.

    Trainspotting had too much running.
    Trainspotting was the film that convinced me to never try drugs.
    You do know that not all drugs are like heroin, right?
    I guess not.
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    Mrs Foxy does...

    Fortunately a coat of paint lasts well, and even expensive paint doesn't cost much.
    Garbage. Good paint costs a bomb. A massive easily forgotten cost when doing up a house, something you have clearly never done.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,256
    kinabalu said:

    Off topic, but possibly of betting importance: Yesterday, I saw the first mention of Nikki Haley on a local news program. Our "mainstream" news organizations have been reluctant to even mention alternatives to the Loser, except for a brief spell when DeSantis got some coverage.

    That's partly because they want viewers and clicks, and partly because most "mainstream" journalists like the damage he's doing to the Republican Party.)

    I do think Haley is worth a small-ish flutter at odds of around 15-1 for Iowa. Trump will probably be okay, but it isn't temperamentally the best red state for him, he's stubbornly shy of a majority in primary polls there, and he underperformed there in 2016 (losing to Cruz and almost slipping to third behind Rubio when polls had him as likely winner).

    For Haley, there is a reasonable chance Republicans there who aren't sold on Trump will rally around her with the De Santis campaign apparently having a slow puncture which has led to it deflating over many months, and Ramaswamy also basically on the slide.

    Caucuses are also decided by those that turn up (well, all votes are but caucuses take more of an effort). I just wonder if Trump dominating the process may lead to lazy assumptions of invincibility by supporters on the day.

    I'd not say it's likely, but Trump hasn't fully sewn it up.
    If the race can resolve to Trump v Haley quite quickly (fuck off Ron) and Trump's national poll numbers start to slide a bit in response to legal developments and further revelations and stupid shit that he says, then it could get interesting. Things might look very different in say 3 months to how they look today.

    I think there's a big chance of this. The Trump situation is inherently unstable and primed to blow up. I really do feel that. I'm just waiting to see precisely what triggers it, and when, and how the dust settles. His 2.6 price for the WH reflects none of this. It's crazy short imo. All trees and no wood.
    If Trump were a normal candidate, I could see Haley winning and then she’d be favourite for the main event. But Trump won’t lose. I mean, he may get fewer votes, but he’ll still insist he won, he’ll never drop out, he’ll contest everything, muddy the waters, stand as an independent where he can.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,908
    fpt
    malcolmg said:

    Sad news about Darling.

    Someone I know knew him a little bit. He was a thoroughly nice fellah by all accounts.

    Depends on your viewpoint , some consider him a real traitor
    Darling was one of the scummiest politicians around only surpassed by tom watson
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,340
    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    They do. Elephant's Breath. It's ubiquitous. Very nice too.
    Brilliant colour
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,163
    malcolmg said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    My wife insists on it
    Mrs P. does too. And since she does the painting, I'm not arguing.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    Damn, I’d planned to spend this evening, unusually all alone in the French place, reading the fun pop history / anthropology / sociology book “human kind” by Rutger Bregman (it even has a whole chapter on the Gobekli tepe would you believe) but no, it’s staring at a screen tapping in responses on PB. Time to log off I think.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,109
    edited November 2023
    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    They do. Elephant's Breath. It's ubiquitous. Very nice too.
    Names like that are up there with Breakfast Cereal cafes.

    People using that paint are required to have goaty hipster beards and nose rings.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    They do. Elephant's Breath. It's ubiquitous. Very nice too.
    Brilliant colour
    F&B, finally a brand that unites PoliticalBetting.com
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,598

    isam said:

    Biggest betting move of the day has to be The Pogues for Christmas No1 - 5/4 into about 1/6

    Kissinger might be in with a shout with his version of Give Peace a Chance.
    🙂 - or Darling with his cover of Money Too Tight To Mention.
  • Options
    I blame Boris Johnson, for high migration says Rishi Sunak

    Prime minister ‘inherited’ the ‘very large numbers’ from his predecessor


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-blame-boris-johnson-for-high-migration-says-rishi-sunak-g56cfxz27
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,256

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    That's not a great idea, given that nature gifted us racial differences to make us particularly suited to our environments. A dark-skinned person is at higher risk of vitamin d deficiency related conditions when living in a less sunny climate, and a ginger person (as an extreme example) needs to be very careful of their skin when living in Australia.
    I wasn’t expecting someone to be arguing against “miscegenation” on PB today. Sun cream and vit. D-enriched milk means we will probably survive.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,402
    Pagan2 said:

    fpt

    malcolmg said:

    Sad news about Darling.

    Someone I know knew him a little bit. He was a thoroughly nice fellah by all accounts.

    Depends on your viewpoint , some consider him a real traitor
    Darling was one of the scummiest politicians around only surpassed by tom watson
    I can think of scummier politicians without trying very hard. (Scummier than Darling, not Watson. It's hard to think of many scummier politicians than Watson.)
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,598
    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    Which it often is.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    They do. Elephant's Breath. It's ubiquitous. Very nice too.
    Names like that are up there with Breakfast Cereal cafes.

    People using that paint are required to have goaty hipster beards and nose rings.
    Most purchasers of Elephants breath eschew the nose rings for pink pashminas and Range Rover Velars.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,339
    edited November 2023
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    With so much sadness* and death, it's time to fire up the most perfect movie soundtrack of all time.

    Trainspotting. 14 perfect songs.

    Embrace it people.

    (Bizarrely, it' not available on Spotify. So here's a playlist someone created on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPAfi7VbU4g&list=PLkdH33fATc7ugUi9E3Y7rXGNQlBp9E5RG&ab_channel=BaseAllMighty)

    * Not Henry Kissinger, obviously

    Best movie soundtrack of all time - at least for those of us who were 18 in 1996.
    Wasn't bad for those of us who were 21!
    Those of us who were 22, on the other hand, found it far too difficult to comprehend.
    I was 23. A younger friend was really raving about wanting to watch it, but I just thought: "Why would I want to sit in the cinema watching the sad antics of a load of druggies? I lived in London for five years..."
    Wait. You still haven't seen it?
    Actually, I haven't. Not particularly interested in it; saw enough of that sort of world in London. And, to think of it, before.

    There was a drug problem even in a tiny town like provincial Uttoxeter, in the late 1980s, at least.

    I've seen loads of clips, and I daresay it's well-acted and well-written, but it's just not my cup of tea. Or syringe of heroin.

    Perhaps I missed out on something. But there are certain types of films I just don't like. Courtroom dramas bore me (sorry, all PB's lawyers). Mafia films ditto. Though to be fair, there are exceptions in each category.
    It's not really a gritty-realism film. More a slightly surreal dark comedy.
    For gritty realism of heroin addiction it is hard to beat "Christiane F", it is on BFI player, and a brilliant film. Slightly controversial now because of the age of the main star. Great Bowie soundtrack too.

    I would argue that the best movie soundtrack is "Easy Rider", yet another druggie film.
    Goodfellas: the helicopter scene (Harry Nilsson - Jump into the Fire)
    i was gonna be busy all day I had to drop off some guns at jimmy's to match some silencers he had gotten I had to pick up my brother at the hospital and drive him back to the house for dinner that night and then I had to pick up some new pittsburgh stuff for lois to fly down to some customers I had near atlanta. Right away I knew he didn't want them I knew I was going to get stuck for the money I only bought the damn guns because he wanted them and now he didn't want them. I didn't say a thing jimmy was so pissed off he didn't even say goodbye...

  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,551

    I blame Boris Johnson, for high migration says Rishi Sunak

    Prime minister ‘inherited’ the ‘very large numbers’ from his predecessor


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-blame-boris-johnson-for-high-migration-says-rishi-sunak-g56cfxz27

    Rishi’s not good at this “politics” thing, is he?
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,163
    TimS said:

    Damn, I’d planned to spend this evening, unusually all alone in the French place, reading the fun pop history / anthropology / sociology book “human kind” by Rutger Bregman (it even has a whole chapter on the Gobekli tepe would you believe) but no, it’s staring at a screen tapping in responses on PB. Time to log off I think.

    Don't let those anti-F&Bers whose imitations are Pale Hound you off the site.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,067
    Surprised to hear of Darling's passing tbh. RIP.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,477
    edited November 2023
    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    Biggest betting move of the day has to be The Pogues for Christmas No1 - 5/4 into about 1/6

    Kissinger might be in with a shout with his version of Give Peace a Chance.
    🙂 - or Darling with his cover of Money Too Tight To Mention.
    Or Margaret Hodge with I'm Still Standing.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,908
    ok a point to make....people often say people who voted leave were deceived into thinking that voting for brexit would sort out their issues...I somewhat agree with that....however here is a question

    Did being in the eu for many decades ever sort out their issues? Obviously not so why blame them for taking the gamble that just maybe it would
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,109
    edited November 2023
    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    They do. Elephant's Breath. It's ubiquitous. Very nice too.
    Names like that are up there with Breakfast Cereal cafes.

    People using that paint are required to have goaty hipster beards and nose rings.
    Most purchasers of Elephants breath eschew the nose rings for pink pashminas and Range Rover Velars.
    What is a Range Rover Velar?

    Isn't Velar a thing used to make decisions in football matches, which half the crowd always say got it wrong?

    (Checks)

    Oh I see - it's where Katie Price starts her performance of Fairytale of New York. Since we are celebrating Shane MacGowan.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,256
    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    Does structural racism exist in places?

    Yes, of course.

    (See the story of the town in the US that elected the black Mayor, and then the outgoing administration went to extraordinary lengths to try and stop him taking up his position for a particularly egregious example.)

    Are humans hardwired to trust and like people who are superficially (accent, skin color, etc) similar to them?

    Yes, hugely.

    Does that mean that white people are particularly racist?

    No.

    Is skin colour the primary determinant of your life outcomes?

    Nope. In addition to your drive and talents, your chances of achieving success in life are influences by many, many privileges and prejudices. And reducing it all to a single factor of "skin color" is incredibly dangerous.
    I’m not aware of Eddo-Lodge claiming that it all reduced to “a single factor of “skin colour””.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,067
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    You're painting a barn o_O with Farrow and Ball :o !!?!
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,339
    viewcode said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    With so much sadness* and death, it's time to fire up the most perfect movie soundtrack of all time.

    Trainspotting. 14 perfect songs.

    Embrace it people.

    (Bizarrely, it' not available on Spotify. So here's a playlist someone created on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPAfi7VbU4g&list=PLkdH33fATc7ugUi9E3Y7rXGNQlBp9E5RG&ab_channel=BaseAllMighty)

    * Not Henry Kissinger, obviously

    Best movie soundtrack of all time - at least for those of us who were 18 in 1996.
    Wasn't bad for those of us who were 21!
    Those of us who were 22, on the other hand, found it far too difficult to comprehend.
    I was 23. A younger friend was really raving about wanting to watch it, but I just thought: "Why would I want to sit in the cinema watching the sad antics of a load of druggies? I lived in London for five years..."
    Wait. You still haven't seen it?
    Actually, I haven't. Not particularly interested in it; saw enough of that sort of world in London. And, to think of it, before.

    There was a drug problem even in a tiny town like provincial Uttoxeter, in the late 1980s, at least.

    I've seen loads of clips, and I daresay it's well-acted and well-written, but it's just not my cup of tea. Or syringe of heroin.

    Perhaps I missed out on something. But there are certain types of films I just don't like. Courtroom dramas bore me (sorry, all PB's lawyers). Mafia films ditto. Though to be fair, there are exceptions in each category.
    It's not really a gritty-realism film. More a slightly surreal dark comedy.
    For gritty realism of heroin addiction it is hard to beat "Christiane F", it is on BFI player, and a brilliant film. Slightly controversial now because of the age of the main star. Great Bowie soundtrack too.

    I would argue that the best movie soundtrack is "Easy Rider", yet another druggie film.
    Goodfellas: the helicopter scene (Harry Nilsson - Jump into the Fire)
    i was gonna be busy all day I had to drop off some guns at jimmy's to match some silencers he had gotten I had to pick up my brother at the hospital and drive him back to the house for dinner that night and then I had to pick up some new pittsburgh stuff for lois to fly down to some customers I had near atlanta. Right away I knew he didn't want them I knew I was going to get stuck for the money I only bought the damn guns because he wanted them and now he didn't want them. I didn't say a thing jimmy was so pissed off he didn't even say goodbye...

    Manhunter: Graham vs Dollarhyde (Iron Butterfly - In-a-Gadda-Da-Vita)
    In a gadda da vida, honey. Don't you know that I'm lovin' you. In a gadda da vida, baby. Don't you know that I'll always be true. Oh, won't you come with me. And take my hand...
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    That's not a great idea, given that nature gifted us racial differences to make us particularly suited to our environments. A dark-skinned person is at higher risk of vitamin d deficiency related conditions when living in a less sunny climate, and a ginger person (as an extreme example) needs to be very careful of their skin when living in Australia.
    I wasn’t expecting someone to be arguing against “miscegenation” on PB today. Sun cream and vit. D-enriched milk means we will probably survive.
    Surely a strong argument FOR miscegenation (such an ugly word). A touch of cancer protection for some, a tad better Vit D absorption for others. Happy days.
  • Options

    In the US, when I was growing up, blondes were said to have "more fun". But an attractive man was often described as "tall, dark, and handsome".

    (As far as I have seen, red heads here are just considered "different", not especially attractive or unattractive. Is that true in the UK, too? Or is there a bit of discrimination against "gingers".)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_DVHUEjnuU&t=1s
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,598
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel like we are going backwards on this topic.
    Sorry to reply to my own post, but as a coda I remember a John Oliver piece (someone who I criticise quite a bit, because I genuinely like him and find him hilarious, so its frustrating when I think he goes too far), where people were of course quoting MLK a lot to dispute race theory efforts, and mocking that by saying something like 'But we haven't reached that dream [of not judging people by race] yet', the argument seemingly being that we still have a lot of inequality and prejudice to confront.

    Which may be the case, though I don't think it is as much as others believe, but the use of the argument still stands, since the goal of the famous quote about judging by content of character is still a great thing to aim for, whereas assessments of privilege, especially historical privilege, seem to reject that as a target, and to maintain judging by race because of historical sins.
    That's still the goal. But something so deep rooted and pervasive has to be recognised and confronted. A challenging process (esp for people who've always been in the box seat) but a necessary one. That's the thinking and it rings true to me.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    Pulpstar said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    You're painting a barn o_O with Farrow and Ball :o !!?!
    Mainly stone, some lime mortar, and then the remaining walls (mainly bathrooms) in F&B lookalike colours.

    Give it a few months and you’ll find us on booking.com and Airbnb.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,643
    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    I thought she wasn’t talking to us ?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,067

    I blame Boris Johnson, for high migration says Rishi Sunak

    Prime minister ‘inherited’ the ‘very large numbers’ from his predecessor


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-blame-boris-johnson-for-high-migration-says-rishi-sunak-g56cfxz27

    Someone needs to tell him it's not like his father in laws money, you can't "inherit" immigration...
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,163

    kinabalu said:

    Off topic, but possibly of betting importance: Yesterday, I saw the first mention of Nikki Haley on a local news program. Our "mainstream" news organizations have been reluctant to even mention alternatives to the Loser, except for a brief spell when DeSantis got some coverage.

    That's partly because they want viewers and clicks, and partly because most "mainstream" journalists like the damage he's doing to the Republican Party.)

    I do think Haley is worth a small-ish flutter at odds of around 15-1 for Iowa. Trump will probably be okay, but it isn't temperamentally the best red state for him, he's stubbornly shy of a majority in primary polls there, and he underperformed there in 2016 (losing to Cruz and almost slipping to third behind Rubio when polls had him as likely winner).

    For Haley, there is a reasonable chance Republicans there who aren't sold on Trump will rally around her with the De Santis campaign apparently having a slow puncture which has led to it deflating over many months, and Ramaswamy also basically on the slide.

    Caucuses are also decided by those that turn up (well, all votes are but caucuses take more of an effort). I just wonder if Trump dominating the process may lead to lazy assumptions of invincibility by supporters on the day.

    I'd not say it's likely, but Trump hasn't fully sewn it up.
    If the race can resolve to Trump v Haley quite quickly (fuck off Ron) and Trump's national poll numbers start to slide a bit in response to legal developments and further revelations and stupid shit that he says, then it could get interesting. Things might look very different in say 3 months to how they look today.

    I think there's a big chance of this. The Trump situation is inherently unstable and primed to blow up. I really do feel that. I'm just waiting to see precisely what triggers it, and when, and how the dust settles. His 2.6 price for the WH reflects none of this. It's crazy short imo. All trees and no wood.
    If Trump were a normal candidate, I could see Haley winning and then she’d be favourite for the main event. But Trump won’t lose. I mean, he may get fewer votes, but he’ll still insist he won, he’ll never drop out, he’ll contest everything, muddy the waters, stand as an independent where he can.
    Trump heading towards his 90s constantly bleating on Truth Social and Fox News about how he won in 2020, won in 2024, won in 2028... I could live with that.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,402

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    Does structural racism exist in places?

    Yes, of course.

    (See the story of the town in the US that elected the black Mayor, and then the outgoing administration went to extraordinary lengths to try and stop him taking up his position for a particularly egregious example.)

    Are humans hardwired to trust and like people who are superficially (accent, skin color, etc) similar to them?

    Yes, hugely.

    Does that mean that white people are particularly racist?

    No.

    Is skin colour the primary determinant of your life outcomes?

    Nope. In addition to your drive and talents, your chances of achieving success in life are influences by many, many privileges and prejudices. And reducing it all to a single factor of "skin color" is incredibly dangerous.
    I’m not aware of Eddo-Lodge claiming that it all reduced to “a single factor of “skin colour””.
    It's not, but it is elevated above all else.
  • Options
    viewcode said:

    Sad to say, considering it was 7 years ago, but this thread header and the associated polling simply repeats the thread header I posted on here the day after the Brexit vote.

    Immediately before the vote, yougov polling showed that a substantial minority of Leave voters (enough to make it a majority of the overall poll) would favour joining EFTA and the EEA and so retaining freedom of movement. It should have been taken seriously as an option at the time rather than rattling on about the 'purity' of Brexit.

    I lay the blame for this almost entirely at the feet of the succession of post Brexit governing parties with a small but significant dollop of blame being thrownvat those Remainer MPs who were only interested in overturning the vote.

    I still maintain that this is where we will eventually land but we will have wasted years to get there.

    Indeed

    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/26/richard-tyndall-on-the-exit-strategy/
    Cheers Viewcode. I am travelling down from Aberdeen and was unable to find the article via my phone. In fact the percentage of Leave voters in favour of EFTA/EEA was even larger than I remembered. 42% rather than the 35% quoted in this latest poll.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,598

    kinabalu said:

    Off topic, but possibly of betting importance: Yesterday, I saw the first mention of Nikki Haley on a local news program. Our "mainstream" news organizations have been reluctant to even mention alternatives to the Loser, except for a brief spell when DeSantis got some coverage.

    That's partly because they want viewers and clicks, and partly because most "mainstream" journalists like the damage he's doing to the Republican Party.)

    I do think Haley is worth a small-ish flutter at odds of around 15-1 for Iowa. Trump will probably be okay, but it isn't temperamentally the best red state for him, he's stubbornly shy of a majority in primary polls there, and he underperformed there in 2016 (losing to Cruz and almost slipping to third behind Rubio when polls had him as likely winner).

    For Haley, there is a reasonable chance Republicans there who aren't sold on Trump will rally around her with the De Santis campaign apparently having a slow puncture which has led to it deflating over many months, and Ramaswamy also basically on the slide.

    Caucuses are also decided by those that turn up (well, all votes are but caucuses take more of an effort). I just wonder if Trump dominating the process may lead to lazy assumptions of invincibility by supporters on the day.

    I'd not say it's likely, but Trump hasn't fully sewn it up.
    If the race can resolve to Trump v Haley quite quickly (fuck off Ron) and Trump's national poll numbers start to slide a bit in response to legal developments and further revelations and stupid shit that he says, then it could get interesting. Things might look very different in say 3 months to how they look today.

    I think there's a big chance of this. The Trump situation is inherently unstable and primed to blow up. I really do feel that. I'm just waiting to see precisely what triggers it, and when, and how the dust settles. His 2.6 price for the WH reflects none of this. It's crazy short imo. All trees and no wood.
    If Trump were a normal candidate, I could see Haley winning and then she’d be favourite for the main event. But Trump won’t lose. I mean, he may get fewer votes, but he’ll still insist he won, he’ll never drop out, he’ll contest everything, muddy the waters, stand as an independent where he can.
    That's why I love the Dems at 2.2 for the WH. Better imo than 3.5 for Joe specifically.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,908
    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel like we are going backwards on this topic.
    Sorry to reply to my own post, but as a coda I remember a John Oliver piece (someone who I criticise quite a bit, because I genuinely like him and find him hilarious, so its frustrating when I think he goes too far), where people were of course quoting MLK a lot to dispute race theory efforts, and mocking that by saying something like 'But we haven't reached that dream [of not judging people by race] yet', the argument seemingly being that we still have a lot of inequality and prejudice to confront.

    Which may be the case, though I don't think it is as much as others believe, but the use of the argument still stands, since the goal of the famous quote about judging by content of character is still a great thing to aim for, whereas assessments of privilege, especially historical privilege, seem to reject that as a target, and to maintain judging by race because of historical sins.
    That's still the goal. But something so deep rooted and pervasive has to be recognised and confronted. A challenging process (esp for people who've always been in the box seat) but a necessary one. That's the thinking and it rings true to me.
    I would point out however that people sometimes claim its because I was/black/female/gay when its really not which makes people wonder how much there was.

    Back when i was an interviewer for jobs at a previous company we turned down a guy that was black he tried the whole it was because i was black thing and took it to court....he failed because the person we actually employed was 1) black, 2) i actually rang microsoft to verify his certification because I could not believe someone who knew so little had got it
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,067
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Off topic, but possibly of betting importance: Yesterday, I saw the first mention of Nikki Haley on a local news program. Our "mainstream" news organizations have been reluctant to even mention alternatives to the Loser, except for a brief spell when DeSantis got some coverage.

    That's partly because they want viewers and clicks, and partly because most "mainstream" journalists like the damage he's doing to the Republican Party.)

    I do think Haley is worth a small-ish flutter at odds of around 15-1 for Iowa. Trump will probably be okay, but it isn't temperamentally the best red state for him, he's stubbornly shy of a majority in primary polls there, and he underperformed there in 2016 (losing to Cruz and almost slipping to third behind Rubio when polls had him as likely winner).

    For Haley, there is a reasonable chance Republicans there who aren't sold on Trump will rally around her with the De Santis campaign apparently having a slow puncture which has led to it deflating over many months, and Ramaswamy also basically on the slide.

    Caucuses are also decided by those that turn up (well, all votes are but caucuses take more of an effort). I just wonder if Trump dominating the process may lead to lazy assumptions of invincibility by supporters on the day.

    I'd not say it's likely, but Trump hasn't fully sewn it up.
    If the race can resolve to Trump v Haley quite quickly (fuck off Ron) and Trump's national poll numbers start to slide a bit in response to legal developments and further revelations and stupid shit that he says, then it could get interesting. Things might look very different in say 3 months to how they look today.

    I think there's a big chance of this. The Trump situation is inherently unstable and primed to blow up. I really do feel that. I'm just waiting to see precisely what triggers it, and when, and how the dust settles. His 2.6 price for the WH reflects none of this. It's crazy short imo. All trees and no wood.
    If Trump were a normal candidate, I could see Haley winning and then she’d be favourite for the main event. But Trump won’t lose. I mean, he may get fewer votes, but he’ll still insist he won, he’ll never drop out, he’ll contest everything, muddy the waters, stand as an independent where he can.
    That's why I love the Dems at 2.2 for the WH. Better imo than 3.5 for Joe specifically.
    You think Joe should be longer than 1.4 for the nom ?
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,344
    IanB2 said:

    Punters have realised that we might as well have free movement, with so many people coming here anyways.

    The thing is that the people coming under EU freedom of movement rules came with full rights. If your employer treated you like shit, or if you lost your job, you could just get a different job without having to worry about your visa. Many immigrants coming now don't necessarily have that option, which might suit dodgy employers.
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Surprised to hear of Darling's passing tbh. RIP.

    Cancer.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,008
    edited November 2023
    DougSeal said:

    I blame Boris Johnson, for high migration says Rishi Sunak

    Prime minister ‘inherited’ the ‘very large numbers’ from his predecessor


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-blame-boris-johnson-for-high-migration-says-rishi-sunak-g56cfxz27

    Rishi’s not good at this “politics” thing, is he?
    He’s not.

    Only good decision he’s made is bringing back Dave.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,908
    kamski said:

    IanB2 said:

    Punters have realised that we might as well have free movement, with so many people coming here anyways.

    The thing is that the people coming under EU freedom of movement rules came with full rights. If your employer treated you like shit, or if you lost your job, you could just get a different job without having to worry about your visa. Many immigrants coming now don't necessarily have that option, which might suit dodgy employers.
    It is not the only difference....fom allowed people to come work as barista's on minimum wage...they add little to the nation. Now to legally immigrate you need a job where you are more likely to be a net contributor
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,339
    viewcode said:
    I was going to list films with great pre-existing soundtracks, but basically it devolved into a list of Scorsese & Tarantino films, with nods to Michael Mann. So...there's that
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    Does structural racism exist in places?

    Yes, of course.

    (See the story of the town in the US that elected the black Mayor, and then the outgoing administration went to extraordinary lengths to try and stop him taking up his position for a particularly egregious example.)

    Are humans hardwired to trust and like people who are superficially (accent, skin color, etc) similar to them?

    Yes, hugely.

    Does that mean that white people are particularly racist?

    No.

    Is skin colour the primary determinant of your life outcomes?

    Nope. In addition to your drive and talents, your chances of achieving success in life are influences by many, many privileges and prejudices. And reducing it all to a single factor of "skin color" is incredibly dangerous.
    I’m not aware of Eddo-Lodge claiming that it all reduced to “a single factor of “skin colour””.
    It's not, but it is elevated above all else.
    Maybe in parts of US society, but not in the UK. Class and education are both bigger influences and generally assumed to be so too.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,402

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    Does structural racism exist in places?

    Yes, of course.

    (See the story of the town in the US that elected the black Mayor, and then the outgoing administration went to extraordinary lengths to try and stop him taking up his position for a particularly egregious example.)

    Are humans hardwired to trust and like people who are superficially (accent, skin color, etc) similar to them?

    Yes, hugely.

    Does that mean that white people are particularly racist?

    No.

    Is skin colour the primary determinant of your life outcomes?

    Nope. In addition to your drive and talents, your chances of achieving success in life are influences by many, many privileges and prejudices. And reducing it all to a single factor of "skin color" is incredibly dangerous.
    I’m not aware of Eddo-Lodge claiming that it all reduced to “a single factor of “skin colour””.
    It's not, but it is elevated above all else.
    Maybe in parts of US society, but not in the UK. Class and education are both bigger influences and generally assumed to be so too.
    I don't disagree with that; I am referring to Why I No Longer Talking To White People About Racism.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel like we are going backwards on this topic.
    Sorry to reply to my own post, but as a coda I remember a John Oliver piece (someone who I criticise quite a bit, because I genuinely like him and find him hilarious, so its frustrating when I think he goes too far), where people were of course quoting MLK a lot to dispute race theory efforts, and mocking that by saying something like 'But we haven't reached that dream [of not judging people by race] yet', the argument seemingly being that we still have a lot of inequality and prejudice to confront.

    Which may be the case, though I don't think it is as much as others believe, but the use of the argument still stands, since the goal of the famous quote about judging by content of character is still a great thing to aim for, whereas assessments of privilege, especially historical privilege, seem to reject that as a target, and to maintain judging by race because of historical sins.
    That's still the goal. But something so deep rooted and pervasive has to be recognised and confronted. A challenging process (esp for people who've always been in the box seat) but a necessary one. That's the thinking and it rings true to me.
    I would point out however that people sometimes claim its because I was/black/female/gay when its really not which makes people wonder how much there was.

    Back when i was an interviewer for jobs at a previous company we turned down a guy that was black he tried the whole it was because i was black thing and took it to court....he failed because the person we actually employed was 1) black, 2) i actually rang microsoft to verify his certification because I could not believe someone who knew so little had got it
    I was once guilty of rank prejudice in an interview. The candidate went to the same college as me and had a posh accent. I assumed he was just applying to us as a fall back because his real plan was to go into investment banking. I also assumed he thought there was some old boys network going on. So I rejected him.

    Several years later he joins my new firm and over drinks I discover he was properly committed to the job interviewed for and disappointed he didn’t get it. And isn’t the arrogant sort I assumed at all. Quite the opposite. I felt very guilty afterwards. He’s one of our hardest workers. And he’s
    done pretty well despite me.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,339
    Taz said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    I thought she wasn’t talking to us ?
    She isn't. She's so not talking to white people she did a podcast where she tells us again that she's really not talking to white people. Presumably her next move involves a loudhailer.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,908

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    Does structural racism exist in places?

    Yes, of course.

    (See the story of the town in the US that elected the black Mayor, and then the outgoing administration went to extraordinary lengths to try and stop him taking up his position for a particularly egregious example.)

    Are humans hardwired to trust and like people who are superficially (accent, skin color, etc) similar to them?

    Yes, hugely.

    Does that mean that white people are particularly racist?

    No.

    Is skin colour the primary determinant of your life outcomes?

    Nope. In addition to your drive and talents, your chances of achieving success in life are influences by many, many privileges and prejudices. And reducing it all to a single factor of "skin color" is incredibly dangerous.
    I’m not aware of Eddo-Lodge claiming that it all reduced to “a single factor of “skin colour””.
    It's not, but it is elevated above all else.
    Maybe in parts of US society, but not in the UK. Class and education are both bigger influences and generally assumed to be so too.
    Assumed so by people like you. I grew up in council housing, went to a comprehensive and totally reject your assumtion. Stop putting people like me down. Most of the people I grew up are their own worst enemies because they listen to people with your mind set and believe it. You are the problem
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,191
    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    They do. Elephant's Breath. It's ubiquitous. Very nice too.
    Names like that are up there with Breakfast Cereal cafes.

    People using that paint are required to have goaty hipster beards and nose rings.
    Most purchasers of Elephants breath eschew the nose rings for pink pashminas and Range Rover Velars.
    What is a Range Rover Velar?

    Micro-segmentation from JLR to make product that fits in between the Schport and the Ejoque. It was also the codename for original RR pre-production prototype. I drove one once and the suspension had been tuned by somebody with zero understanding of Hooke's Law, Movement Ratios, Corner Balancing or Natural Frequencies. i.e. a Top Gear/Grand Tour viewer.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,908
    People in general like an excuse, I didn't get on because I came from a council estate, i went to a life in crime because I came from a broken home, I didn't get on because my class is wrong

    Its total bollocks. They didn't get on because instead of working at education they ignored it because people persuaded them they would always be failures no matter what they did.

  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    Does structural racism exist in places?

    Yes, of course.

    (See the story of the town in the US that elected the black Mayor, and then the outgoing administration went to extraordinary lengths to try and stop him taking up his position for a particularly egregious example.)

    Are humans hardwired to trust and like people who are superficially (accent, skin color, etc) similar to them?

    Yes, hugely.

    Does that mean that white people are particularly racist?

    No.

    Is skin colour the primary determinant of your life outcomes?

    Nope. In addition to your drive and talents, your chances of achieving success in life are influences by many, many privileges and prejudices. And reducing it all to a single factor of "skin color" is incredibly dangerous.
    I’m not aware of Eddo-Lodge claiming that it all reduced to “a single factor of “skin colour””.
    It's not, but it is elevated above all else.
    Maybe in parts of US society, but not in the UK. Class and education are both bigger influences and generally assumed to be so too.
    My landlady was obsequiously deferential to my predecessor who was, in her words, an "Indian Gentleman", making it perfectly clear en passant that in her opinion I was neither. But that was over 50 years ago.
  • Options
    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    Does structural racism exist in places?

    Yes, of course.

    (See the story of the town in the US that elected the black Mayor, and then the outgoing administration went to extraordinary lengths to try and stop him taking up his position for a particularly egregious example.)

    Are humans hardwired to trust and like people who are superficially (accent, skin color, etc) similar to them?

    Yes, hugely.

    Does that mean that white people are particularly racist?

    No.

    Is skin colour the primary determinant of your life outcomes?

    Nope. In addition to your drive and talents, your chances of achieving success in life are influences by many, many privileges and prejudices. And reducing it all to a single factor of "skin color" is incredibly dangerous.
    I’m not aware of Eddo-Lodge claiming that it all reduced to “a single factor of “skin colour””.
    It's not, but it is elevated above all else.
    Maybe in parts of US society, but not in the UK. Class and education are both bigger influences and generally assumed to be so too.
    Assumed so by people like you. I grew up in council housing, went to a comprehensive and totally reject your assumtion. Stop putting people like me down. Most of the people I grew up are their own worst enemies because they listen to people with your mind set and believe it. You are the problem
    Lol, its statistical not personal. I am not putting anyone down, just stating facts.

    That people who have a mindset they can achieve things do better than those who have a mindset of looking for reasons why the world is against them is another fact, and applies across society. It is just another indicator of how people get on, just like class, education, race, wealth, health, height, looks etc - it does not replace them.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,477
    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    They do. Elephant's Breath. It's ubiquitous. Very nice too.
    I didn't know they did perfume.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    Does structural racism exist in places?

    Yes, of course.

    (See the story of the town in the US that elected the black Mayor, and then the outgoing administration went to extraordinary lengths to try and stop him taking up his position for a particularly egregious example.)

    Are humans hardwired to trust and like people who are superficially (accent, skin color, etc) similar to them?

    Yes, hugely.

    Does that mean that white people are particularly racist?

    No.

    Is skin colour the primary determinant of your life outcomes?

    Nope. In addition to your drive and talents, your chances of achieving success in life are influences by many, many privileges and prejudices. And reducing it all to a single factor of "skin color" is incredibly dangerous.
    I’m not aware of Eddo-Lodge claiming that it all reduced to “a single factor of “skin colour””.
    It's not, but it is elevated above all else.
    Maybe in parts of US society, but not in the UK. Class and education are both bigger influences and generally assumed to be so too.
    I don't disagree with that; I am referring to Why I No Longer Talking To White People About Racism.
    I Don't Read Books With That Much Capitalisation So Shall Bow Out Now Before My Eyes Hurt.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,163
    Pagan2 said:

    People in general like an excuse, I didn't get on because I came from a council estate, i went to a life in crime because I came from a broken home, I didn't get on because my class is wrong

    Its total bollocks. They didn't get on because instead of working at education they ignored it because people persuaded them they would always be failures no matter what they did.

    Hang on, aren't you the one who has often complained that you're still only earning what you were 20 years ago? How well have you got on?
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,545

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    Does structural racism exist in places?

    Yes, of course.

    (See the story of the town in the US that elected the black Mayor, and then the outgoing administration went to extraordinary lengths to try and stop him taking up his position for a particularly egregious example.)

    Are humans hardwired to trust and like people who are superficially (accent, skin color, etc) similar to them?

    Yes, hugely.

    Does that mean that white people are particularly racist?

    No.

    Is skin colour the primary determinant of your life outcomes?

    Nope. In addition to your drive and talents, your chances of achieving success in life are influences by many, many privileges and prejudices. And reducing it all to a single factor of "skin color" is incredibly dangerous.
    I’m not aware of Eddo-Lodge claiming that it all reduced to “a single factor of “skin colour””.
    It's not, but it is elevated above all else.
    Maybe in parts of US society, but not in the UK. Class and education are both bigger influences and generally assumed to be so too.
    I don't disagree with that; I am referring to Why I No Longer Talking To White People About Racism.
    I Don't Read Books With That Much Capitalisation So Shall Bow Out Now Before My Eyes Hurt.
    Just noticed there's a play on in London at the moment with the title: "For Black Boys Who Have Considered Suicide When the Hue Gets Too Heavy"

    https://www.londontheatre.co.uk/show/27460-for-black-boys-who-have-considered-suicide-when-the-hue-gets-too-heavy
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,342
    The new Parliamentary constituency boundaries became law with effect from yesterday:

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/1230/made

    (Apologies if already posted)
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,299
    Andy_JS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    Does structural racism exist in places?

    Yes, of course.

    (See the story of the town in the US that elected the black Mayor, and then the outgoing administration went to extraordinary lengths to try and stop him taking up his position for a particularly egregious example.)

    Are humans hardwired to trust and like people who are superficially (accent, skin color, etc) similar to them?

    Yes, hugely.

    Does that mean that white people are particularly racist?

    No.

    Is skin colour the primary determinant of your life outcomes?

    Nope. In addition to your drive and talents, your chances of achieving success in life are influences by many, many privileges and prejudices. And reducing it all to a single factor of "skin color" is incredibly dangerous.
    I’m not aware of Eddo-Lodge claiming that it all reduced to “a single factor of “skin colour””.
    It's not, but it is elevated above all else.
    Maybe in parts of US society, but not in the UK. Class and education are both bigger influences and generally assumed to be so too.
    I don't disagree with that; I am referring to Why I No Longer Talking To White People About Racism.
    I Don't Read Books With That Much Capitalisation So Shall Bow Out Now Before My Eyes Hurt.
    Just noticed there's a play on in London at the moment with the title: "For Black Boys Who Have Considered Suicide When the Hue Gets Too Heavy"

    https://www.londontheatre.co.uk/show/27460-for-black-boys-who-have-considered-suicide-when-the-hue-gets-too-heavy
    A reference to this:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Colored_Girls_Who_Have_Considered_Suicide_/_When_the_Rainbow_Is_Enuf
  • Options
    SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 611
    viewcode said:

    The news gets worse today

    Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond are set to leave The Grand Tour, bringing an end to their 20-year presenting partnership.

    The men, who hosted the BBC series Top Gear from 2003, have all decided to leave the series on Amazon Prime after five seasons.

    Asked if they were leaving, Clarkson told The Times: “We’re done. I have reviewed cars on TV since 1989. That’s 34 years. And after next year, I won’t be doing that any more.

    ...Clarkson is set to release at least one more series of his popular programme Clarkson’s Farm, also on Amazon. May, 60, also stars in travelogues for the streamer where he has visited Japan and Italy, with a new series in India due soon.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/presenters-set-to-bring-down-curtain-on-grand-tour-f767p80zb

    • Shane MacGowan
    • Henry Kissinger
    • Alaistair Darling
    • Jimmy Corkhill
    • The Grand Tour
    • Top Gear
    who's next... :(
    This reminds me of when JFK was assassinated the same day as Aldous Huxley and C. S. Lewis died.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,822
    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    I actually can believe that. But I don't think it requires acceptance of every claim of structural racism, which seems to be all encompassing on pretty much every issue, or that the focus placed on racial minutaie and blame casting of people down the generations, is a good way to combat that structural effect even if people accept it is there.
    I can understand the frustration with people who claim that everything’s sorted so what’s the fuss. Same with gender politics. But the problem is what’s the end game? Surely an end game that’s colour blind is better than one where racial difference is everything.

    This is another example of American hang ups infecting British culture because we happen to speak the same language and use the same apps.
    This is absolutely spot on.
    The idea that this is just an imported american hang up is a common delusion that downplays the seriousness of the problems. 'Woke' ideology is actually working against a 'colourblind' future. It seeks to divide people up in to different socially constructed identity groups who then operate in shifting patterns of warring alliances. If western civilisation is to successfully reinvent itself for another few generations there needs to be a more inclusive and positive ideology that replaces all this. Otherwise the west will ultimately just get crushed or enslaved by stronger and more cohesive and self confident civilisations.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,551
    Dura_Ace said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    They do. Elephant's Breath. It's ubiquitous. Very nice too.
    Names like that are up there with Breakfast Cereal cafes.

    People using that paint are required to have goaty hipster beards and nose rings.
    Most purchasers of Elephants breath eschew the nose rings for pink pashminas and Range Rover Velars.
    What is a Range Rover Velar?

    Micro-segmentation from JLR to make product that fits in between the Schport and the Ejoque. It was also the codename for original RR pre-production prototype. I drove one once and the suspension had been tuned by somebody with zero understanding of Hooke's Law, Movement Ratios, Corner Balancing or Natural Frequencies. i.e. a Top Gear/Grand Tour viewer.
    I understood almost nothing in that post and can assure you I have never watched either Top Gear or Grand Tour. But, to
    me, the unexplained military and automotive terminology is what makes your contributions far more mysterious and exciting than virtually anything else on here.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    darkage said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    I actually can believe that. But I don't think it requires acceptance of every claim of structural racism, which seems to be all encompassing on pretty much every issue, or that the focus placed on racial minutaie and blame casting of people down the generations, is a good way to combat that structural effect even if people accept it is there.
    I can understand the frustration with people who claim that everything’s sorted so what’s the fuss. Same with gender politics. But the problem is what’s the end game? Surely an end game that’s colour blind is better than one where racial difference is everything.

    This is another example of American hang ups infecting British culture because we happen to speak the same language and use the same apps.
    This is absolutely spot on.
    The idea that this is just an imported american hang up is a common delusion that downplays the seriousness of the problems. 'Woke' ideology is actually working against a 'colourblind' future. It seeks to divide people up in to different socially constructed identity groups who then operate in shifting patterns of warring alliances. If western civilisation is to successfully reinvent itself for another few generations there needs to be a more inclusive and positive ideology that replaces all this. Otherwise the west will ultimately just get crushed or enslaved by stronger and more cohesive and self confident civilisations.
    A bit of a non sequitur. It comes from America, and it’s decidedly less marked in Britain.

    Most of what get complained of as woke in Britain is exactly the same as what was called PC gone mad in the 90s.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    DougSeal said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    They do. Elephant's Breath. It's ubiquitous. Very nice too.
    Names like that are up there with Breakfast Cereal cafes.

    People using that paint are required to have goaty hipster beards and nose rings.
    Most purchasers of Elephants breath eschew the nose rings for pink pashminas and Range Rover Velars.
    What is a Range Rover Velar?

    Micro-segmentation from JLR to make product that fits in between the Schport and the Ejoque. It was also the codename for original RR pre-production prototype. I drove one once and the suspension had been tuned by somebody with zero understanding of Hooke's Law, Movement Ratios, Corner Balancing or Natural Frequencies. i.e. a Top Gear/Grand Tour viewer.
    I understood almost nothing in that post and can assure you I have never watched either Top Gear or Grand Tour. But, to
    me, the unexplained military and automotive terminology is what makes your contributions far more mysterious and exciting than virtually anything else on here.
    Dura is the modern PB equivalent of the 16th C seer who talks in riddles. Could be a genius, could just be someone who talks in riddles, but is entertaining nonetheless.

    I’ve been considering who his antithesis on PB is (see later post) and would include it’s probably BigGNorthWales.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,163
    darkage said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    I actually can believe that. But I don't think it requires acceptance of every claim of structural racism, which seems to be all encompassing on pretty much every issue, or that the focus placed on racial minutaie and blame casting of people down the generations, is a good way to combat that structural effect even if people accept it is there.
    I can understand the frustration with people who claim that everything’s sorted so what’s the fuss. Same with gender politics. But the problem is what’s the end game? Surely an end game that’s colour blind is better than one where racial difference is everything.

    This is another example of American hang ups infecting British culture because we happen to speak the same language and use the same apps.
    This is absolutely spot on.
    The idea that this is just an imported american hang up is a common delusion that downplays the seriousness of the problems. 'Woke' ideology is actually working against a 'colourblind' future. It seeks to divide people up in to different socially constructed identity groups who then operate in shifting patterns of warring alliances. If western civilisation is to successfully reinvent itself for another few generations there needs to be a more inclusive and positive ideology that replaces all this. Otherwise the west will ultimately just get crushed or enslaved by stronger and more cohesive and self confident civilisations.
    'Woke ideology' is entirely an invention of the right. Where is the 'woke ideology' manifesto and who wrote it?
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,144
    I’m so sick of Sunaks constant whining . It’s always someone else’s fault .
  • Options
    On topic, so only a minority of people support Rejoin at 31%, then, whilst nearly 70% are opposed?

    Glad we got that straight.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,822

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    Does structural racism exist in places?

    Yes, of course.

    (See the story of the town in the US that elected the black Mayor, and then the outgoing administration went to extraordinary lengths to try and stop him taking up his position for a particularly egregious example.)

    Are humans hardwired to trust and like people who are superficially (accent, skin color, etc) similar to them?

    Yes, hugely.

    Does that mean that white people are particularly racist?

    No.

    Is skin colour the primary determinant of your life outcomes?

    Nope. In addition to your drive and talents, your chances of achieving success in life are influences by many, many privileges and prejudices. And reducing it all to a single factor of "skin color" is incredibly dangerous.
    I’m not aware of Eddo-Lodge claiming that it all reduced to “a single factor of “skin colour””.
    It's not, but it is elevated above all else.
    Maybe in parts of US society, but not in the UK. Class and education are both bigger influences and generally assumed to be so too.
    I don't disagree with that; I am referring to Why I No Longer Talking To White People About Racism.
    I Don't Read Books With That Much Capitalisation So Shall Bow Out Now Before My Eyes Hurt.
    YOU HAVE POSSIBLY NEVER HEARD OF MR TRUMP.
  • Options

    I think rejoining the single market, either bilaterally or via the EEA, needs some sort of referendum in support. Maybe just an indicative one, but having voted OUT, the public need the opportunity to vote (to some extent) IN.

    But if Keir is looking for measures to deliver growth, this is an obvious one, and looks to have quite widespread support now.

    Maybe, but I note that the Leave campaign said we wouldn't be leaving the single market, so they can hardly complain if we re-join it.
    They didn't say that during the referendum campaign. Everyone from Michael Gove to David Cameron to Wolfgang Schäuble was clear that a vote to Leave meant leaving the single market.
    OK, forgive me, they said we would have access to the Single Market. http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html says:

    "Third, we will have a new UK-EU trading relationship. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. [...]

    "The EU’s supporters say ‘we must have access to the Single Market’. Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave."

    If Starmer delivers entry to a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border, phrasing that seems to define the EEA to me, then presumably Leavers will be OK with that?
    We have tariff and quota-free access to the single market now. By objective global standards it's a free trade zone.

    By way of comparison, the USA and Mexico are part of a free trade zone. Is trade between the US and Mexico more open than between the UK and EU post-Brexit?
    I'm not sure how much extra growth rejoining the Single Market would "unlock", given its mainly for goods and easier access to lower productivity workers.

    I'd be surprised if it was much more than 0.2-0.3% of extra GDP per annum, if that.

    Negligible.
  • Options
    algarkirk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    Does structural racism exist in places?

    Yes, of course.

    (See the story of the town in the US that elected the black Mayor, and then the outgoing administration went to extraordinary lengths to try and stop him taking up his position for a particularly egregious example.)

    Are humans hardwired to trust and like people who are superficially (accent, skin color, etc) similar to them?

    Yes, hugely.

    Does that mean that white people are particularly racist?

    No.

    Is skin colour the primary determinant of your life outcomes?

    Nope. In addition to your drive and talents, your chances of achieving success in life are influences by many, many privileges and prejudices. And reducing it all to a single factor of "skin color" is incredibly dangerous.
    I’m not aware of Eddo-Lodge claiming that it all reduced to “a single factor of “skin colour””.
    It's not, but it is elevated above all else.
    Maybe in parts of US society, but not in the UK. Class and education are both bigger influences and generally assumed to be so too.
    I don't disagree with that; I am referring to Why I No Longer Talking To White People About Racism.
    I Don't Read Books With That Much Capitalisation So Shall Bow Out Now Before My Eyes Hurt.
    YOU HAVE POSSIBLY NEVER HEARD OF MR TRUMP.
    He makes more than just my EYES hurt.
  • Options
    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    A lovely obituary, that focuses on Darling’s key role in the 2014 referendum.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/30/alistair-darling-put-country-before-party-and-saved-the-un/
    “It says a great deal about the man that across the disparate parties and interests of Better Together, there was virtually unanimous support for Darling’s appointment as chair. To his efforts can be attributed the defeat of the nationalist project (if not the nationalists themselves) and the continuation of the world’s most successful political, economic and social Union.”

    Pass the sick bucket
    I think it’s lovely that the people who pissed and moaned about establishment wheeze Project Fear II (EU ref model) are willing to eulogise the figurehead of establishment wheeze Project Fear I (Indy ref model). Just goes to show how big hearted they are.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,643
    Dura_Ace said:

    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    I spent this morning placing Farrow and Ball swatches against various walls in our barn and choosing green smoke, lime white and something else I don’t remember. I suggested to the architect that we could buy the F&B in the UK as it’s about a third cheaper than in France and she borderline snorted. “Well you could buy actual Farrow (the French don’t bother with the “and ball”) but we were going to colour match otherwise you will have no budget left.

    Paint is horrendously expensive here. F&B is affordable only to oligarchs.
    Nobody actually buys Farrow and Ball.
    They do. Elephant's Breath. It's ubiquitous. Very nice too.
    Names like that are up there with Breakfast Cereal cafes.

    People using that paint are required to have goaty hipster beards and nose rings.
    Most purchasers of Elephants breath eschew the nose rings for pink pashminas and Range Rover Velars.
    What is a Range Rover Velar?

    Micro-segmentation from JLR to make product that fits in between the Schport and the Ejoque. It was also the codename for original RR pre-production prototype. I drove one once and the suspension had been tuned by somebody with zero understanding of Hooke's Law, Movement Ratios, Corner Balancing or Natural Frequencies. i.e. a Top Gear/Grand Tour viewer.
    I remember that god awful limited edition Victoria Beckham Evoque they did around the time I was there with Matt paint on the outside. Dreadful. Thought they’d sell 100 and struggled to shift 80.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,163

    On topic, so only a minority of people support Rejoin at 31%, then, whilst nearly 70% are opposed?

    Glad we got that straight.

    If you're going to count the DKs as 'oppose' you'd need to accept that 62.5% of the electorate 'opposed' Brexit.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,822

    On topic, so only a minority of people support Rejoin at 31%, then, whilst nearly 70% are opposed?

    Glad we got that straight.

    It is somehow very British (English?) to want something and be strongly opposed to getting it.
  • Options

    I can't quite figure out what has tarnished the Brexit brand to this extent. Remember, it was once predicted that as soon as the Tories got a Leaver PM - and the Tory voters no longer had to pretend out of loyalty to Dave - then pro-Brexit sentiment would be running at 70-80%. What happened? Was it Boris?

    It's a good question. I think the standout thing isn't that a significant minority of Leavers think it's going badly. That was probably inevitable: it was sold as a silver bullet to people who were unhappy with the way the country was going, and because it was missold and their problems couldn't be solved by Brexit they are mostly still unhappy. What is really striking is that almost no Remainers have been won over. This reflects the atmosphere of the referendum and its aftermath, when 48% of the population were branded traitors and told to shut up. This failure to be generous and compromise was the Leave campaign's biggest failure, and is what puts their project's long term future in peril.
    Remain has gone down from 48% to 31% in that poll.

    Sorry.
  • Options
    SandraMc said:

    viewcode said:

    The news gets worse today

    Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond are set to leave The Grand Tour, bringing an end to their 20-year presenting partnership.

    The men, who hosted the BBC series Top Gear from 2003, have all decided to leave the series on Amazon Prime after five seasons.

    Asked if they were leaving, Clarkson told The Times: “We’re done. I have reviewed cars on TV since 1989. That’s 34 years. And after next year, I won’t be doing that any more.

    ...Clarkson is set to release at least one more series of his popular programme Clarkson’s Farm, also on Amazon. May, 60, also stars in travelogues for the streamer where he has visited Japan and Italy, with a new series in India due soon.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/presenters-set-to-bring-down-curtain-on-grand-tour-f767p80zb

    • Shane MacGowan
    • Henry Kissinger
    • Alaistair Darling
    • Jimmy Corkhill
    • The Grand Tour
    • Top Gear
    who's next... :(
    This reminds me of when JFK was assassinated the same day as Aldous Huxley and C. S. Lewis died.
    I'm still struggling with Darling going at only age 70.

    Thoroughly decent fellah by all accounts.

    I have it on good authority that he had dry and at times filthy sense of humour.

    The interview by Decca Aitenhead on the beach somewhere in the far Western Isles is a classic.
  • Options
    VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,441
    The Autumn Finance Bill was published yesterday.

    What is interesting is what it does not contain.

    There is no provision charging income tax for 2024/25.

    This means that there will be another Budget before April and an associated Finance Bill and thus the possibility of changing rates.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,822
    TimS said:

    darkage said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    CatMan said:

    I see The Guardian has named the royals mentioned in the Dutch translation of the book. Surely the BBC has to at some point as well?

    It’s kinda funny this because the only people really obsessed with the whiteness of the skin colour of mixed race kids are Asian people, they really want the skin colour to be really white.

    Was also my experience when I sired mixed race kids.
    Mine, too; although in my case it was half-Thai grandchildren.
    Everyone wants to be white. It’s a human universal dating back thousands of years. “Fairness” in women is prized in Sumerian texts
    I remember on our wedding day the make up people tried to give my wife some kind of skin bleach, which was ridiculous as (a) she is a stunningly beautiful dark skinned Sri Lankan woman whose skin tone could not be improved upon and (b) presumably if I'd wanted to marry a fair skinned woman I wouldn't have been marrying her. They tried to achieve something similar by overexposing the wedding picture, the result of which is that I look like a ghost.
    The whole thing is very odd to me as Sri Lankans are quite a good looking bunch and it's odd that they'd want to look more like white people. Our children are a Farrow and Ball colour chart of skin tones. Our eldest is so fair that when we lived in the US (where people seem to be a bit more focused on skin colour than here) some people refused to believe my wife was her mother.
    There have been some awkward cases of people criticising mixed race politicians on the assumption they are white of course - skin colour has quite the range outside our very broad classifications.
    In a few generations most of the world will hopefully have Brazilianised, with the majority of people having a mixture of genes and there being no need to talk of mixed race anymore because everyone already is.

    “Mixed race” is an awful expression, implying as it does that Humans are made up of canine-style breeds. Nobody talks about “mixed hair colour”.

    There’s a bit of a battle of ideas between the 90s concept of a future where we’re all colourblind, and the 2010s+ era where we must pay close attention to race so that we can understand prejudice and privilege. I preferred the colourblindness, even if that marks me out as a naive centrist dad. I saw in both my children that they had no conception of racial difference at school until people told them about it.
    Yes, I find the modern trend to be both depressing and bizarre in some ways. Yes, we may not have reached a place where there is total colour blindness in action or in the more tricky sense of ingrained attitudes/institutional disparities, but isn't it a good goal at least?

    Whereas a hyperfocus on how we apparently differentiate from one another on race, gender, whatever, and who owes the other this or that, should feel guilt or a sense of oppression regardless of the actions and views they personally hold, seems like a bad goal to me. One which is not as helpful at redressing inequalities as what we were doing before.

    Isn't there a place where we don't dismiss there may be work to do, without making race in particular the main distinguising factor in our lives? If nothing else it often presupposes people of one 'race' (such as that is even a thing, given as you point out the difficulties there) are supposed to think the same things, since the arguments are always framed in absolutist terms, speaking for everyone of a particular type, or against a type.

    I feel l ike we are going backwards on this topic.
    The lady who wrote “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” specifically says that claiming to be ‘colourblind’ is just a way to deny the existence of structural racism

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
    I actually can believe that. But I don't think it requires acceptance of every claim of structural racism, which seems to be all encompassing on pretty much every issue, or that the focus placed on racial minutaie and blame casting of people down the generations, is a good way to combat that structural effect even if people accept it is there.
    I can understand the frustration with people who claim that everything’s sorted so what’s the fuss. Same with gender politics. But the problem is what’s the end game? Surely an end game that’s colour blind is better than one where racial difference is everything.

    This is another example of American hang ups infecting British culture because we happen to speak the same language and use the same apps.
    This is absolutely spot on.
    The idea that this is just an imported american hang up is a common delusion that downplays the seriousness of the problems. 'Woke' ideology is actually working against a 'colourblind' future. It seeks to divide people up in to different socially constructed identity groups who then operate in shifting patterns of warring alliances. If western civilisation is to successfully reinvent itself for another few generations there needs to be a more inclusive and positive ideology that replaces all this. Otherwise the west will ultimately just get crushed or enslaved by stronger and more cohesive and self confident civilisations.
    A bit of a non sequitur. It comes from America, and it’s decidedly less marked in Britain.

    Most of what get complained of as woke in Britain is exactly the same as what was called PC gone mad in the 90s.
    What I see is people who can obviously see the problem brushing it off with comments like the above... because they have come to the conclusion internally that the best solution is to let the extremes of 'woke' burn itself out under the weight of its own contradictions. I can recall rcs making similar comments to this over the years. But the problem is the institutional and cultural capture is so great that it doesn't happen.
This discussion has been closed.