Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'm still confused as to why this fine line is necessary. I will absolutely agree with your general point that calling all Trump voters racist is a (politically) bad thing and leads only to entrenchment of positions.

However, the wall wasn't about Mexico, it was about all the people south of the border, all of whom are Hispanic. I suppose you could say it was nationalistic against all of Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc if you really wanted, but I really don't see the value in pretending that race has nothing to do with it. I don't know you're saving anyone's feelings in a useful way by refusing to call a spade a spade.

Puja

I want to stick to the truth. The wall discriminates on the basis of nationality (ie non-US), not on race.

If you say it is racist because its purpose is to keep out non-americans (predominantly from the countries you mention, predominantly hispanic people), then so are all controls on that border. Are you arguing that all border controls between the USA and Mexico are racist?

I'm certainly not saying that race has nothing to do with this - no doubt it was a big factor in the Wall's genesis and in its appeal. But so was class discrimination, fear of the poor, economic insecurity, and fear of violence (obviously exaggerated by the media . . . and Breaking Bad).

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the distinction that you clearly are. Just because it's nationalistic doesn't mean it can't also be racist - it's designed to stop non-Americans, because "those people are criminals, drug dealers, and rapists." It's like when people said, "The immigration ban wasn't a muslim ban because it didn't include all Muslim countries and might catch some non-Muslims too." Things don't exist outside of context or intent - it's clear and obvious what the intent of it is.

Oddly, I'd say that the border controls between the USA and Mexico make the wall *more* racist, because the border is not the point at which most illegal immigration into the US comes from, nor is the point on the border where the wall is where most of the immigration on the border happens (citation: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/68366269 ... ta-tell-us). So chucking a ridiculous amount of budget at something largely futile suggests that it's a symbol rather than an immigration tool.

I don't know; it feels like splitting hairs to me. One can be worried about immigration and not be racist, certainly. A wall in and of itself, might not be racist. However, I personally don't see how Trump's wall is not racist. YMMV

Puja

I don't really want to get deeply into Trump's travel ban but I would say that it was clearly aimed at Muslim majority countries (if you pick 7 seven random counties on Earth, your odds of them all being Muslim are astronomically low). Whereas the wall is a strengthening of an existing border.

I really don't understand your point about the border controls making the wall *more* rascist. The fact that it's impractical, inefficient etc doesn't change how racist it is.

Can I try to repeat or rephrase my point? If border controls were taken away, those locations would simply be roads between Mexico and the USA. If this was the situation then illegal immigrants could easily move from Mexico to the US. These would predominantly be Hispanic. Therefore the effect of existing border controls is to prevent illegal immigration by people who are mostly Hispanic. Does that mean the existing border controls are racist?

[Puja]

I don't really want to get deeply into Trump's travel ban but I would say that it was clearly aimed at Muslim majority countries (if you pick 7 seven random counties on Earth, your odds of them all being Muslim are astronomically low). Whereas the wall is a strengthening of an existing border.

I really don't understand your point about the border controls making the wall *more* rascist. The fact that it's impractical, inefficient etc doesn't change how racist it is.

Can I try to repeat or rephrase my point? If border controls were taken away, those locations would simply be roads between Mexico and the USA. If this was the situation then illegal immigrants could easily move from Mexico to the US. These would predominantly be Hispanic. Therefore the effect of existing border controls is to prevent illegal immigration by people who are mostly Hispanic. Does that mean the existing border controls are racist?

Okay, I see where your point is, but I'm still not sure I agree with it. There are also border controls on the border with Canada. They are to stop Canadians illegally coming in, just the same as the Mexican ones are to stop Mexicans coming in. Those are nationalistic border controls.

The "new wall" (such as it is) was being raised because "they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. They're animals." It cannot be devoid of the context that it was proposed in. A wall is not necessarily racist. The existing wall is not necessarily racist. This 'new' one is, because it's very raison d'etre, stated openly and plainly, was to keep 'those people' away.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

I don't really want to get deeply into Trump's travel ban but I would say that it was clearly aimed at Muslim majority countries (if you pick 7 seven random counties on Earth, your odds of them all being Muslim are astronomically low). Whereas the wall is a strengthening of an existing border.

I really don't understand your point about the border controls making the wall *more* rascist. The fact that it's impractical, inefficient etc doesn't change how racist it is.

Can I try to repeat or rephrase my point? If border controls were taken away, those locations would simply be roads between Mexico and the USA. If this was the situation then illegal immigrants could easily move from Mexico to the US. These would predominantly be Hispanic. Therefore the effect of existing border controls is to prevent illegal immigration by people who are mostly Hispanic. Does that mean the existing border controls are racist?

Okay, I see where your point is, but I'm still not sure I agree with it. There are also border controls on the border with Canada. They are to stop Canadians illegally coming in, just the same as the Mexican ones are to stop Mexicans coming in. Those are nationalistic border controls.

The "new wall" (such as it is) was being raised because "they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. They're animals." It cannot be devoid of the context that it was proposed in. A wall is not necessarily racist. The existing wall is not necessarily racist. This 'new' one is, because it's very raison d'etre, stated openly and plainly, was to keep 'those people' away.

Puja

This getting philosophical .

So an object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

And a similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?

[Puja]

I don't really want to get deeply into Trump's travel ban but I would say that it was clearly aimed at Muslim majority countries (if you pick 7 seven random counties on Earth, your odds of them all being Muslim are astronomically low). Whereas the wall is a strengthening of an existing border.

I really don't understand your point about the border controls making the wall *more* rascist. The fact that it's impractical, inefficient etc doesn't change how racist it is.

Can I try to repeat or rephrase my point? If border controls were taken away, those locations would simply be roads between Mexico and the USA. If this was the situation then illegal immigrants could easily move from Mexico to the US. These would predominantly be Hispanic. Therefore the effect of existing border controls is to prevent illegal immigration by people who are mostly Hispanic. Does that mean the existing border controls are racist?

Okay, I see where your point is, but I'm still not sure I agree with it. There are also border controls on the border with Canada. They are to stop Canadians illegally coming in, just the same as the Mexican ones are to stop Mexicans coming in. Those are nationalistic border controls.

The "new wall" (such as it is) was being raised because "they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. They're animals." It cannot be devoid of the context that it was proposed in. A wall is not necessarily racist. The existing wall is not necessarily racist. This 'new' one is, because it's very raison d'etre, stated openly and plainly, was to keep 'those people' away.

Puja

This getting philosophical .

So an object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

And a similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?

...that is a weird fucking extrapolation to take from this. I feel like you're trying to take a leap to, "Are you saying if we don't know the creator's intent, then we can't say anything is racist," which is absolutely not what I'm saying.

Some items are inherently racist: Gollywogs, for example. "No blacks" signs. Segregated water fountains.
Some items are not inherently racist: A rope tied in a slipknot. A banana. A wall
The first list will remain racist no matter the intent.
The second list may not be racist in some situations, but will be in others: left in black neighbourhoods, thrown at sports stars, from a politician who says that Mexicans are rapists and animals and thus this wall is necessary to keep them from pouring over the border.

In fact, the rope tied in a slipknot is an excellent example of this. A noose was found in black Nascar driver, Bubba Watson's pit garage after he spoke publically about BLM. The rope is not inherently a racist object - the intent to intimidate a black man was what made it racist. An investigation found out that that noose had been there for over a year, long since before Watson started using the garage and was a handle to swing a garage door shut. The fact that the intent of it was not to threaten Wallace changed the noose from a racist object to a bit of rope that was handy to shut a door.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Okay, I see where your point is, but I'm still not sure I agree with it. There are also border controls on the border with Canada. They are to stop Canadians illegally coming in, just the same as the Mexican ones are to stop Mexicans coming in. Those are nationalistic border controls.

The "new wall" (such as it is) was being raised because "they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. They're animals." It cannot be devoid of the context that it was proposed in. A wall is not necessarily racist. The existing wall is not necessarily racist. This 'new' one is, because it's very raison d'etre, stated openly and plainly, was to keep 'those people' away.

Puja

This getting philosophical .

So an object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

And a similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?

...that is a weird fucking extrapolation to take from this. I feel like you're trying to take a leap to, "Are you saying if we don't know the creator's intent, then we can't say anything is racist," which is absolutely not what I'm saying.

You're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I totally agree that some things are inherently racist, like discriminatory laws, racial caricatures, symbols of racist organisations etc, no question about that.

What's more difficult to understand is where an object is not inherently racist, has no discriminatory effect. Can it be racist and if so, under what circumstances?

Some items are inherently racist: Gollywogs, for example. "No blacks" signs. Segregated water fountains.
Some items are not inherently racist: A rope tied in a slipknot. A banana. A wall
The first list will remain racist no matter the intent.
The second list may not be racist in some situations, but will be in others: left in black neighbourhoods, thrown at sports stars, from a politician who says that Mexicans are rapists and animals and thus this wall is necessary to keep them from pouring over the border.

In fact, the rope tied in a slipknot is an excellent example of this. A noose was found in black Nascar driver, Bubba Watson's pit garage after he spoke publically about BLM. The rope is not inherently a racist object - the intent to intimidate a black man was what made it racist. An investigation found out that that noose had been there for over a year, long since before Watson started using the garage and was a handle to swing a garage door shut. The fact that the intent of it was not to threaten Wallace changed the noose from a racist object to a bit of rope that was handy to shut a door.

Puja

That slipknot is a very unusual and interesting example - like a case of mistaken identity. Only thought to be racist because an intent was inferred (incorrectly).

Do you mind going back to my questions relating to the wall? ie I think you were saying something to this effect - do you agree with this?

1) An object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

2) A similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

3) So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?[

[Puja]

This getting philosophical .

So an object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

And a similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?

...that is a weird fucking extrapolation to take from this. I feel like you're trying to take a leap to, "Are you saying if we don't know the creator's intent, then we can't say anything is racist," which is absolutely not what I'm saying.

You're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I totally agree that some things are inherently racist, like discriminatory laws, racial caricatures, symbols of racist organisations etc, no question about that.

What's more difficult to understand is where an object is not inherently racist, has no discriminatory effect. Can it be racist and if so, under what circumstances?

Some items are inherently racist: Gollywogs, for example. "No blacks" signs. Segregated water fountains.
Some items are not inherently racist: A rope tied in a slipknot. A banana. A wall
The first list will remain racist no matter the intent.
The second list may not be racist in some situations, but will be in others: left in black neighbourhoods, thrown at sports stars, from a politician who says that Mexicans are rapists and animals and thus this wall is necessary to keep them from pouring over the border.

In fact, the rope tied in a slipknot is an excellent example of this. A noose was found in black Nascar driver, Bubba Watson's pit garage after he spoke publically about BLM. The rope is not inherently a racist object - the intent to intimidate a black man was what made it racist. An investigation found out that that noose had been there for over a year, long since before Watson started using the garage and was a handle to swing a garage door shut. The fact that the intent of it was not to threaten Wallace changed the noose from a racist object to a bit of rope that was handy to shut a door.

Puja

That slipknot is a very unusual and interesting example - like a case of mistaken identity. Only thought to be racist because an intent was inferred (incorrectly).

Do you mind going back to my questions relating to the wall? ie I think you were saying something to this effect - do you agree with this?

1) An object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

2) A similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

3) So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?[

Okay, so you were asking literally what you wrote and I should try reading comprehension, huh? My mistake.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable summation - an object that is not inherently racist can become racist if originated or used for a racist reason or with racist intent.

Puja

[Digby]

For all the noise around Corbyn it's not the more important story of the day, that surely is the awarding of contracts around Covid in such appalling fashion by the Tory Party.

A good number of ministers, some in the cabinet, and MPs fall foul of being inept, corrupt, or both. Resignations should already have been submitted, but as we saw with Agent Cummings they treat their roles with contempt. There is simply no acceptable explanation of far too much of the behaviour, it's not good enough to say we were under pressure to do something and/or it's a pandemic and look at what happened somewhere else.

[Son of Mathonwy]

...that is a weird fucking extrapolation to take from this. I feel like you're trying to take a leap to, "Are you saying if we don't know the creator's intent, then we can't say anything is racist," which is absolutely not what I'm saying.

You're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I totally agree that some things are inherently racist, like discriminatory laws, racial caricatures, symbols of racist organisations etc, no question about that.

What's more difficult to understand is where an object is not inherently racist, has no discriminatory effect. Can it be racist and if so, under what circumstances?

Some items are inherently racist: Gollywogs, for example. "No blacks" signs. Segregated water fountains.
Some items are not inherently racist: A rope tied in a slipknot. A banana. A wall
The first list will remain racist no matter the intent.
The second list may not be racist in some situations, but will be in others: left in black neighbourhoods, thrown at sports stars, from a politician who says that Mexicans are rapists and animals and thus this wall is necessary to keep them from pouring over the border.

In fact, the rope tied in a slipknot is an excellent example of this. A noose was found in black Nascar driver, Bubba Watson's pit garage after he spoke publically about BLM. The rope is not inherently a racist object - the intent to intimidate a black man was what made it racist. An investigation found out that that noose had been there for over a year, long since before Watson started using the garage and was a handle to swing a garage door shut. The fact that the intent of it was not to threaten Wallace changed the noose from a racist object to a bit of rope that was handy to shut a door.

Puja

That slipknot is a very unusual and interesting example - like a case of mistaken identity. Only thought to be racist because an intent was inferred (incorrectly).

Do you mind going back to my questions relating to the wall? ie I think you were saying something to this effect - do you agree with this?

1) An object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

2) A similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

3) So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?[

Okay, so you were asking literally what you wrote and I should try reading comprehension, huh? My mistake.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable summation - an object that is not inherently racist can become racist if originated or used for a racist reason or with racist intent.

Puja

No worries

Okay, so we have an object that has no racially discriminatory effects, but which was created by a someone with racist intent, and is therefore racist. Assuming its effects remain the same, how long does it remain racist?
1) is it permanently racist?
2) does it cease to be racist once it leaves the control of the creator?
3) does it cease to be racist if it falls into the control of a non-racist?
4) does it cease to be racist if it's relaunched or rebranded in a clearly non-racist way?
5) is there a time limit on it?
6) something else?

[Son of Mathonwy]

For all the noise around Corbyn it's not the more important story of the day, that surely is the awarding of contracts around Covid in such appalling fashion by the Tory Party.

A good number of ministers, some in the cabinet, and MPs fall foul of being inept, corrupt, or both. Resignations should already have been submitted, but as we saw with Agent Cummings they treat their roles with contempt. There is simply no acceptable explanation of far too much of the behaviour, it's not good enough to say we were under pressure to do something and/or it's a pandemic and look at what happened somewhere else.

Agreed. The existence of this high-priority channel is a disgrace. Indeed this kind of corruption should land them in court.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rt-reveals

[Digby]

For all the noise around Corbyn it's not the more important story of the day, that surely is the awarding of contracts around Covid in such appalling fashion by the Tory Party.

A good number of ministers, some in the cabinet, and MPs fall foul of being inept, corrupt, or both. Resignations should already have been submitted, but as we saw with Agent Cummings they treat their roles with contempt. There is simply no acceptable explanation of far too much of the behaviour, it's not good enough to say we were under pressure to do something and/or it's a pandemic and look at what happened somewhere else.

Agreed. The existence of this high-priority channel is a disgrace. Indeed this kind of corruption should land them in court.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rt-reveals

If the high priority channel had delivered speed and value (accepting some reduced value) for money I'd accept it in a pandemic, but they're not even close to being bloody awful

[Sandydragon]

For all the noise around Corbyn it's not the more important story of the day, that surely is the awarding of contracts around Covid in such appalling fashion by the Tory Party.

A good number of ministers, some in the cabinet, and MPs fall foul of being inept, corrupt, or both. Resignations should already have been submitted, but as we saw with Agent Cummings they treat their roles with contempt. There is simply no acceptable explanation of far too much of the behaviour, it's not good enough to say we were under pressure to do something and/or it's a pandemic and look at what happened somewhere else.

Agreed. The existence of this high-priority channel is a disgrace. Indeed this kind of corruption should land them in court.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rt-reveals

If the high priority channel had delivered speed and value (accepting some reduced value) for money I'd accept it in a pandemic, but they're not even close to being bloody awful

There's a lot here which is highly questionable. Its certainly worth of further investigation. I'm absolutely prepared to take into account the mad panic at the start of this pandemic and that people make mistakes. But there is a whiff of cronyism here which is hard to ignore.

[Digby]

Agreed. The existence of this high-priority channel is a disgrace. Indeed this kind of corruption should land them in court.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rt-reveals

If the high priority channel had delivered speed and value (accepting some reduced value) for money I'd accept it in a pandemic, but they're not even close to being bloody awful

There's a lot here which is highly questionable. Its certainly worth of further investigation. I'm absolutely prepared to take into account the mad panic at the start of this pandemic and that people make mistakes. But there is a whiff of cronyism here which is hard to ignore.

I get people make mistakes under pressure, but when they're this bad they should be accepting some consequences of making those mistakes. And not just the one sacrificial lamb, a multitude need to go. They're asking for a chance to work in some of the highest of high office and the standard to work there is high, I tried isn't close to good enough

[Puja]

You're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I totally agree that some things are inherently racist, like discriminatory laws, racial caricatures, symbols of racist organisations etc, no question about that.

What's more difficult to understand is where an object is not inherently racist, has no discriminatory effect. Can it be racist and if so, under what circumstances?


That slipknot is a very unusual and interesting example - like a case of mistaken identity. Only thought to be racist because an intent was inferred (incorrectly).

Do you mind going back to my questions relating to the wall? ie I think you were saying something to this effect - do you agree with this?

1) An object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

2) A similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

3) So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?[

Okay, so you were asking literally what you wrote and I should try reading comprehension, huh? My mistake.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable summation - an object that is not inherently racist can become racist if originated or used for a racist reason or with racist intent.

Puja

No worries

Okay, so we have an object that has no racially discriminatory effects, but which was created by a someone with racist intent, and is therefore racist. Assuming its effects remain the same, how long does it remain racist?
1) is it permanently racist?
2) does it cease to be racist once it leaves the control of the creator?
3) does it cease to be racist if it falls into the control of a non-racist?
4) does it cease to be racist if it's relaunched or rebranded in a clearly non-racist way?
5) is there a time limit on it?
6) something else?

1) It depends
2) It depends
3) It depends
4) It depends
5) It depends
6) It depends

Depends very much on the object, the situation, the context, a dozen other things. Even if you were to give me a specific and very detailed example, I would be offering my opinion, rather than a comprehensive rulebook on the precise and accurate laws of "Is this bigoted" and, frankly, as a white, middle-class, cis, straight-passing, young, abled male, I'm probably not the best person to ask. My version of "Check your privilege" is basically, "Check, check, check, yup, got 'em all!"

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

If the high priority channel had delivered speed and value (accepting some reduced value) for money I'd accept it in a pandemic, but they're not even close to being bloody awful

There's a lot here which is highly questionable. Its certainly worth of further investigation. I'm absolutely prepared to take into account the mad panic at the start of this pandemic and that people make mistakes. But there is a whiff of cronyism here which is hard to ignore.

I get people make mistakes under pressure, but when they're this bad they should be accepting some consequences of making those mistakes. And not just the one sacrificial lamb, a multitude need to go. They're asking for a chance to work in some of the highest of high office and the standard to work there is high, I tried isn't close to good enough

1) Tory MPs are not, in general, experts in PPEs or other medical matters so why should their recommendations be given any priority whatsoever?
2) MPs are PEPs (politically exposed persons) under financial regulations. At least in the financial world a transaction relating to a PEP is considered to be higher risk for potential involvement in bribery and corruption and so requires greater scrutiny, not less. (But then I guess this is the kind of 'red tape' that the Tories hate so much.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic ... sed_person

[Son of Mathonwy]

Okay, so you were asking literally what you wrote and I should try reading comprehension, huh? My mistake.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable summation - an object that is not inherently racist can become racist if originated or used for a racist reason or with racist intent.

Puja

No worries

Okay, so we have an object that has no racially discriminatory effects, but which was created by a someone with racist intent, and is therefore racist. Assuming its effects remain the same, how long does it remain racist?
1) is it permanently racist?
2) does it cease to be racist once it leaves the control of the creator?
3) does it cease to be racist if it falls into the control of a non-racist?
4) does it cease to be racist if it's relaunched or rebranded in a clearly non-racist way?
5) is there a time limit on it?
6) something else?

1) It depends
2) It depends
3) It depends
4) It depends
5) It depends
6) It depends

Depends very much on the object, the situation, the context, a dozen other things. Even if you were to give me a specific and very detailed example, I would be offering my opinion, rather than a comprehensive rulebook on the precise and accurate laws of "Is this bigoted" and, frankly, as a white, middle-class, cis, straight-passing, young, abled male, I'm probably not the best person to ask. My version of "Check your privilege" is basically, "Check, check, check, yup, got 'em all!"

Puja

Exactly. You're left with no guide other than what seems right at the time, with no clear basis for that opinion. If Biden inherited a Trump wall? If the existing Mexico border checks were created with racist intent, when did they cease to be racist? It just seems messy.

For me, it seems clearer and more defensible to just say 'created with racist intent' rather than 'racist' in this particular case.

But whatever, we're just disagreeing on the meaning of the word racist in a marginal case, and not on anything actually happening in the world.

[Puja]

No worries

Okay, so we have an object that has no racially discriminatory effects, but which was created by a someone with racist intent, and is therefore racist. Assuming its effects remain the same, how long does it remain racist?
1) is it permanently racist?
2) does it cease to be racist once it leaves the control of the creator?
3) does it cease to be racist if it falls into the control of a non-racist?
4) does it cease to be racist if it's relaunched or rebranded in a clearly non-racist way?
5) is there a time limit on it?
6) something else?

1) It depends
2) It depends
3) It depends
4) It depends
5) It depends
6) It depends

Depends very much on the object, the situation, the context, a dozen other things. Even if you were to give me a specific and very detailed example, I would be offering my opinion, rather than a comprehensive rulebook on the precise and accurate laws of "Is this bigoted" and, frankly, as a white, middle-class, cis, straight-passing, young, abled male, I'm probably not the best person to ask. My version of "Check your privilege" is basically, "Check, check, check, yup, got 'em all!"

Puja

Exactly. You're left with no guide other than what seems right at the time, with no clear basis for that opinion. If Biden inherited a Trump wall? If the existing Mexico border checks were created with racist intent, when did they cease to be racist? It just seems messy.

For me, it seems clearer and more defensible to just say 'created with racist intent' rather than 'racist' in this particular case.

But whatever, we're just disagreeing on the meaning of the word racist in a marginal case, and not on anything actually happening in the world.

I still think you're splitting hairs with an atom laser, but I acknowledge where you are drawing your line.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

1) It depends
2) It depends
3) It depends
4) It depends
5) It depends
6) It depends

Depends very much on the object, the situation, the context, a dozen other things. Even if you were to give me a specific and very detailed example, I would be offering my opinion, rather than a comprehensive rulebook on the precise and accurate laws of "Is this bigoted" and, frankly, as a white, middle-class, cis, straight-passing, young, abled male, I'm probably not the best person to ask. My version of "Check your privilege" is basically, "Check, check, check, yup, got 'em all!"

Puja

Exactly. You're left with no guide other than what seems right at the time, with no clear basis for that opinion. If Biden inherited a Trump wall? If the existing Mexico border checks were created with racist intent, when did they cease to be racist? It just seems messy.

For me, it seems clearer and more defensible to just say 'created with racist intent' rather than 'racist' in this particular case.

But whatever, we're just disagreeing on the meaning of the word racist in a marginal case, and not on anything actually happening in the world.

I still think you're splitting hairs with an atom laser, but I acknowledge where you are drawing your line.

Puja

Fair enough.

[Digby]

I thought Boris might go down the route of saying he expected more of his ministers whilst accepting the apology from Patel, or he might have said the behaviour whilst not ideal wasn't at a level he'd expect a resignation for. I flat out didn't expect Boris to say he didn't believe the report, but I guess welcome to Trumpsville

[Sandydragon]

I thought Boris might go down the route of saying he expected more of his ministers whilst accepting the apology from Patel, or he might have said the behaviour whilst not ideal wasn't at a level he'd expect a resignation for. I flat out didn't expect Boris to say he didn't believe the report, but I guess welcome to Trumpsville

So apparently it’s not bullying if you don’t realise that it is. Brilliant. What a fucking joke.

[Digby]

I thought Boris might go down the route of saying he expected more of his ministers whilst accepting the apology from Patel, or he might have said the behaviour whilst not ideal wasn't at a level he'd expect a resignation for. I flat out didn't expect Boris to say he didn't believe the report, but I guess welcome to Trumpsville

So apparently it’s not bullying if you don’t realise that it is. Brilliant. What a fucking joke.

The Prince Andrew defence

[Son of Mathonwy]

I thought Boris might go down the route of saying he expected more of his ministers whilst accepting the apology from Patel, or he might have said the behaviour whilst not ideal wasn't at a level he'd expect a resignation for. I flat out didn't expect Boris to say he didn't believe the report, but I guess welcome to Trumpsville

So apparently it’s not bullying if you don’t realise that it is. Brilliant. What a fucking joke.

For that to be remotely plausible, she'd need to be someone with no understanding of decency in normal human interactions.

Oh wait, I get it now.

[Son of Mathonwy]

It's interesting to look at the principles which should underpin standards for public life (which came out the Nolan Commission in 1995):

The Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the Civil Service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also apply to all those in other sectors delivering public services.

1.1 Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

1.2 Integrity
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

1.3 Objectivity
Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

1.4 Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

1.5 Openness
Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

1.6 Honesty
Holders of public office should be truthful.

1.7 Leadership
Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ic-life--2


It reads as a checklist of things this government doesn't have.

Also, it provides a quick answer to the question 'is Boris Johnson fit for public office?'.

[Digby]

The spending review didn't mention Brexit, this is supposed to be the idea of many in cabinet and yet 40 odd days from it they've nothing to say on it when it comes to the country's finances

[Sandydragon]

The spending review didn't mention Brexit, this is supposed to be the idea of many in cabinet and yet 40 odd days from it they've nothing to say on it when it comes to the country's finances

Yeah, but concerning.

[Digby]

Dominic Cummings wins Dick of the Year on the Last Leg edging out strong competition from Trump, deserved congrats to Agent Cummings and Goings. #Dom not Don