Planet Rugby Forum

Gavin Duffy wrote:Another good article from the Economist on race theory (apologies for the lack of paragraphs, that’s just how it comes across)

Spoiler: show

[quote]
The new ideology of race
America’s problem with racism can be divided into two parts. One contains all the myriad injustices that still blight African-American lives a century and a half after the end of slavery. The other is the way that factions on the right exploit racial division as a political tool. An example of the first occurred on May 25th on a shabby street corner in Minneapolis, when George Floyd was killed by a white policeman. An example of the second occurred on July 3rd, at Mount Rushmore, against the monumental backdrop of the country’s greatest presidents, when Donald Trump sought to inflame a culture war centred on race to boost his chances of a second term. To be successful, a campaign for racial justice needs to deal with both.
Leaders like Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King used vigorous protest and relentless argument to push society towards their vision of equality of opportunity and equality before the law. Most Americans still hew to that classical liberal ideal as do many of those who marched with justified anger over the killing of Mr Floyd. But a dangerous rival approach has emerged from American universities (see article). It rejects the liberal notion of progress. It defines everyone by their race, and every action as racist or anti-racist. It is not yet dominant, but it is dynamic and it is spreading out of the academy into everyday life. If it supplants liberal values, then intimidation will chill open debate and sow division to the disadvantage of all, black and white.
The premise underpinning this ideology is correct: that racial inequality is shockingly persistent. Even though attitudes to race have improved, the quality of African-American lives has not kept pace. A third of black boys born in 2001 will probably spend time locked up, compared with one in 17 white boys. In 1968 black households earned around 60% as much as white households, and owned assets that were less than 10% of those of a typical white family. They still do.
This ideology also has some valid insights. Racism is sustained by unjust institutions and practices. Sometimes, as in policing, this is overt. More often, in countless small put-downs and biases, it is subtle but widespread and harmful.
But then the ideology takes a wrong turn, by seeking to impose itself through intimidation and power. Not the power that comes from persuasion and elections, but from silencing your critics, insisting that those who are not with you are against you, and shutting out those who are deemed privileged or disloyal to their race. It is a worldview where everything and everyone is seen through the prism of ideology—who is published, who gets jobs, who can say what to whom; one in which in-groups obsess over orthodoxy in education, culture and heritage; one that enforces absolute equality of outcome, policy by policy, paragraph by paragraph, if society is to count as just.
It is tempting to see such ideas as nothing more than overheated campus radicalism. And, true enough, they have not yet taken over a political party. When people speak of ending white privilege, most of them have good things in mind like inclusion and justice. But ideas are important, and the spread of campus terminology into newsrooms and boardrooms invites in ideologues. Their approach is already taking a toll. In universities research agendas are being warped. Outside them, public shaming and intimidation have been curbing debate.
The pity is that these ideas will not solve America’s problems with race. They will not eliminate inequality because they are a poor way to bring about beneficial change. Unless you can freely analyse causes and question orthodoxies you will not be able to solve problems. And unless you can criticise people and practices without fear of being called out, you will not be able to design effective policies and then go on to refine them.
The new race theory blocks progress in another way, too. The barriers to racism can be dismantled only when they are exposed—and so they must be, however painful. But the false idea that ingrained racism will forever block African-Americans at every turn is a barrier in its own right.
And, by focusing on power and division, this ideology only creates more space for some on the right to exploit race as a tool. A fundamental belief in power above persuasion frustrates coalition-building. Essential allies are not carried along, but forced along. When every transaction at work, at home, or at the school gate is seen through a prism of racial power, no encounter between different races can be innocent.
The new ideology of race is not just wrong and dangerous, it is also unnecessary. Liberalism can offer a fairer, more promising route to reform. It asserts the dignity of the individual and the legal, civil and moral equality of all people, whatever the colour of their skin. It believes in progress through argument and debate, in which reason and empathy lift truthful ideas and marginalise bigotry and falsehood.
Liberalism thrives on a marketplace of ideas, so diversity has a vital role. New voices and experiences enrich the debate. Liberalism does not fight power with power, which risks replacing one abusive regime with another. Instead it uses facts and evidence, tested in debate, to help the weak take on the strong.
Liberalism is all about progress, including about putting right its mistakes—and there have been many, especially over race, including finding reasons to accommodate imperialism and slavery. That is one reason why, in the 250 years in which it has been influential, humanity has seen unprecedented material, scientific and political gains, as well as a vast extension of social and political rights. Progress on racial inequities has been part of this—as in South Africa, where liberals joined forces with the trade unions and communists to sink apartheid.
Liberals can help in America, too. Much of the material gulf between African-Americans and whites can be bridged with economic policies that improve opportunity. You do not need to build a state based on identity. Nor do you need tools like reparations, which come with practical difficulties and have unintended consequences. Economic policies that are race-neutral, which people qualify for because of poverty, not the colour of their skin, can make a big difference. They have a chance of uniting Americans, not dividing them. If the mood now really is for change, they would be politically sellable and socially cohesive.
Our Briefing lays out what some of these policies might look like. Top of the list is tackling the housing segregation that is central to America’s racial economic inequality. The reform of zoning laws and the grant of rent-assistance vouchers are the chief ingredients. That would bring many benefits, improving public services and lessening violence. More integrated housing would integrate schools too and, given America’s locally financed education, mean that more would be spent on black children. Affordable measures, including advice and modest cash grants, have been shown to boost graduation from college. A third tool is the tax system. The earned-income tax credit tops up wages of working adults. A child allowance would cut poverty. A baby bond would help shrink the wealth gap.
In the past liberals have helped bring about change when society faced a challenge to the status quo, as when reforms limited child labour and won women the vote. If America has reached such a moment today, it must not resort to identity politics—and suffer intolerance, intimidation and division. Instead, for reform on race that works, it must look to liberalism.

[/quote]

Has the author been cancelled yet?

Nolanator wrote:

Floppykid wrote:Seems fake tbh.

It does, but it raised a smirk.

It’s real https://www.facebook.com/10000035499298 ... 36533/?d=n

Died pretty young. Wonder if his death was a rare one or if he had an underlying condition/weight issues. Either way, it scares me more than it provides schadenfreude

I was going to say young people are idiots but he wasn't even that young. Not particularly fair laying into the dead but still worth highlighting for the other idiots out there.

On the Killarney house party, am I reading that right and a person who had previously tested positive and wasn't recovered attended the party? Wtaf?

CM11 wrote:I was going to say young people are idiots but he wasn't even that young. Not particularly fair laying into the dead but still worth highlighting for the other idiots out there.

On the Killarney house party, am I reading that right and a person who had previously tested positive and wasn't recovered attended the party? Wtaf?

Verging on sociopathy

anonymous_joe wrote:

camroc1 wrote:WTF are BAM playing at ?

Doing what BAM always do.

These major construction projects can only be done by a handful of companies.

Notwithstanding that, the clients tend to be a bit incompetent and tend also to make changes very frequently.

With the changes to the standard construction contracts a few years ago, it's also very hard to force cost overruns on the client, you generally have to fúck your sub-contractors. Which means that it's harder to turn a profit without being bolshie as fúck with the client.

Which brings us back to the parties involved. Public body and BAM.

Confession.
I've worked as a consulting engineer both directly for BAM, and in a traditional client relationship.
They are contractors , that is their margins on turnover are probably 2 - 4%, and their money is made on screwing subbies, and claiming for anything they can under the contract. As do all the big contractors.

However they have signed a contract, and refusing to restart on site, and failing to engage in the contract dispute clauses of the contract they signed reeks of bully boy tactics. They are thrashing their reputation, which will be noted by the private sector, and are very much are in danger of finding out that the government can be the biggest bully boy of all.

CM11 wrote:Phoenix Park issue? Yay or nay?

Yay...ish.

Through traffic needs to be discouraged, but for that to happen, you'd need metro/Luas from Blanch, through Castle knock to Heuston.

PP needs to be made more accessible to city dwellers, with dedicated BBQ areas, food and drink kiosks, more seats, and general lounging areas for people, some formal gardens etc etc. Ultimately, an urban park's primary function is use by the urban population rather than nature reserve.

Varadkar and/or Chambers are fücked if the park is ever closed off to people driving through from Castleknock and they both know it. It would end up being that way if the gate closures were kept. Can’t give the bike heads an inch.

Having the main city park as a patchwork of rat runs and commuter routes seems perverse, to put it mildly.

It's fine at the weekend though, which is when the majority of people use it.
Also, the fact that the zoo is there means you're always going to get a substantial amount of traffic with people travelling from all over the country to get there.
A potential solution to that would be to set up a park and ride from the new train station and have a shuttle bus brining visitors from there to the zoo every 15mins.

Also, closing the park off to traffic altogether means an end of events like Bloom.

camroc1 wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:

camroc1 wrote:WTF are BAM playing at ?

Doing what BAM always do.

These major construction projects can only be done by a handful of companies.

Notwithstanding that, the clients tend to be a bit incompetent and tend also to make changes very frequently.

With the changes to the standard construction contracts a few years ago, it's also very hard to force cost overruns on the client, you generally have to fúck your sub-contractors. Which means that it's harder to turn a profit without being bolshie as fúck with the client.

Which brings us back to the parties involved. Public body and BAM.

Confession.
I've worked as a consulting engineer both directly for BAM, and in a traditional client relationship.
They are contractors , that is their margins on turnover are probably 2 - 4%, and their money is made on screwing subbies, and claiming for anything they can under the contract. As do all the big contractors.

However they have signed a contract, and refusing to restart on site, and failing to engage in the contract dispute clauses of the contract they signed reeks of bully boy tactics. They are thrashing their reputation, which will be noted by the private sector, and are very much are in danger of finding out that the government can be the biggest bully boy of all.

Almost all successful development is based on screwing over somebody, generally it's based on screwing over everybody.

It's a nasty industry.

anonymous_joe wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:

camroc1 wrote:WTF are BAM playing at ?

Doing what BAM always do.

These major construction projects can only be done by a handful of companies.

Notwithstanding that, the clients tend to be a bit incompetent and tend also to make changes very frequently.

With the changes to the standard construction contracts a few years ago, it's also very hard to force cost overruns on the client, you generally have to fúck your sub-contractors. Which means that it's harder to turn a profit without being bolshie as fúck with the client.

Which brings us back to the parties involved. Public body and BAM.

Confession.
I've worked as a consulting engineer both directly for BAM, and in a traditional client relationship.
They are contractors , that is their margins on turnover are probably 2 - 4%, and their money is made on screwing subbies, and claiming for anything they can under the contract. As do all the big contractors.

However they have signed a contract, and refusing to restart on site, and failing to engage in the contract dispute clauses of the contract they signed reeks of bully boy tactics. They are thrashing their reputation, which will be noted by the private sector, and are very much are in danger of finding out that the government can be the biggest bully boy of all.

Almost all successful development is based on screwing over somebody, generally it's based on screwing over everybody.

It's a nasty industry.

They're reputation was long gone tbf, although I'm not sure how they're going to be able to progress the works at anything more than a snails pace while complying with the government imposed covid 19 restrictions. I have a modicum of sympathy for them on this one, the government really f*cked up wrt construction in their pandemic response.

Floppykid wrote:Seems fake tbh.

There's more than one of them. Guys going apeshit on facebook etc saying it's a hoax and then getting struck down by it.

anonymous_joe wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:

camroc1 wrote:WTF are BAM playing at ?

Doing what BAM always do.

These major construction projects can only be done by a handful of companies.

Notwithstanding that, the clients tend to be a bit incompetent and tend also to make changes very frequently.

With the changes to the standard construction contracts a few years ago, it's also very hard to force cost overruns on the client, you generally have to fúck your sub-contractors. Which means that it's harder to turn a profit without being bolshie as fúck with the client.

Which brings us back to the parties involved. Public body and BAM.

Confession.
I've worked as a consulting engineer both directly for BAM, and in a traditional client relationship.
They are contractors , that is their margins on turnover are probably 2 - 4%, and their money is made on screwing subbies, and claiming for anything they can under the contract. As do all the big contractors.

However they have signed a contract, and refusing to restart on site, and failing to engage in the contract dispute clauses of the contract they signed reeks of bully boy tactics. They are thrashing their reputation, which will be noted by the private sector, and are very much are in danger of finding out that the government can be the biggest bully boy of all.

Almost all successful development is based on screwing over somebody, generally it's based on screwing over everybody.

It's a nasty industry.

It's a very satisfying industry that lawyers basically end up dealing with the turds.
Which is why everyone tries to avoid bringing in the turd chasers.

camroc1 wrote: It's a very satisfying industry that lawyers basically end up dealing with the turds.
Which is why everyone tries to avoid bringing in the turd chasers.

That makes no sense.

All litigation involves an arsehole on at least one side. Often both sides.

Construction arbs are also ten a penny. They're kept out of the courts, but construction is one of the most litigious sectors in Ireland. Everybody in that world is in "court" all the time.

Re: Phoenix park, the government can either lobby for it to become a UNESCO heritage site, or they can believe it’s a vital car commuter artery for people driving from Longford into an already over parked city centre...... but they can’t do both.

A key urban planning mantra since the 90’s has been that you don’t solve obesity by loosening your belt ..... and you don’t solve congestion by prioritizing cars

We are facing into carmaggedon over the coming months if people are facilitated in their natural desire to move from public transport to single occupancy cars. A bit of foresight is required now in terms of facilitating cycling instead.......

anonymous_joe wrote:

camroc1 wrote: It's a very satisfying industry that lawyers basically end up dealing with the turds.
Which is why everyone tries to avoid bringing in the turd chasers.

That makes no sense.

All litigation involves an arsehole on at least one side. Often both sides.

Construction arbs are also ten a penny. They're kept out of the courts, but construction is one of the most litigious sectors in Ireland. Everybody in that world is in "court" all the time.

Think you’re confusing construction (I.e. contractors) with real estate (I.e. developers).

I’ve done some work with Sisk in the past, and while the company was by definition “contractual”, it’s developer clients were usually the main problem. Very rarely did I see (or have I seen) the company in a row with the state for instance.

BAM are a complete outlier, and have been since the showed up in Ireland

She signed up to a programme of Government which did not feature any break clause at the changeover point. Eyes wide open. A wet week in and it's eyes shut tight, mouth wide open. We would have been better off with a posse of independents. Collapsing the Government is the only thing which will save the Greens from being flushed down the toilet next time out. They need to be able to pull the holier than thou self righteous schtick. Inherently unstable.

Hazel Chu is the same.
She also seems to spend too much time on twitter.

Hopefully Martin gets voted down.

“Climate Justice” is the term used quite often.

Can’t see myself giving the Greens much of a preference next time out if Ryan gets knifed even though my local Green TD is supporting him.

Hazel Chu is a seriously Machiavellian politician too, never mind by the Greens usual shall we say standards!

I’ve never voted for them and probably won’t from here on out.
Two big boys and maybe a preference for Labour.

Chu has a weirdly outsized profile for even a mayor.

Every day she comes out with some new stance, or takes a stand against something.
Can ye not just be the f**king mayor.

You have a lovely speaking voice ER.
https://twitter.com/garrethmcdaid/statu ... 5044699141

The way the antifa types blared the music and unfurled the banner, then just got instantly shut down was comic gold.

What a bunch of clowns.

So the anti paedo guys are Justin Barrett and co, aren't they? The same guys who like "traditional values" and the Catholic Church. Ok so

Floppykid wrote:The way the antifa types blared the music and unfurled the banner, then just got instantly shut down was comic gold.

What a bunch of clowns.

I thought it was brilliant.
They were never going to keep it going for more than a few seconds with how outnumbered they were.

Fair play to them.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ ... 2?mode=amp

Christ almighty. I don’t disagree with quarantine from certain places in the world right now but these comments on the US and potential infections and 10 year restrictions are just laughable.

EverReady wrote:Kitty playing to her dose of a base

What's she shiteing on about now?

Gavin Duffy wrote:

EverReady wrote:Kitty playing to her dose of a base

What's she shiteing on about now?

She's merely written what Sam McConkey is saying. He's saying people from the US, UK and Portugal should quarantine for 14 days, use a hotel near the airport for it.
Also said this might have to be a 3 or even 10 year plan because this could be with us for a very long time.
He also said that the US outlook is appalling

Leinsterman wrote:

Gavin Duffy wrote:

EverReady wrote:Kitty playing to her dose of a base

What's she shiteing on about now?

She's merely written what Sam McConkey is saying. He's saying people from the US, UK and Portugal should quarantine for 14 days, use a hotel near the airport for it.
Also said this might have to be a 3 or even 10 year plan because this could be with us for a very long time.
He also said that the US outlook is appalling

He's such a negative nelly. I reckon he probably washes his hands 40 or 50 times a day virus or no virus.

Yes the US and UK are basket cases, but 3-10 years is misery porn.

EverReady wrote:

Gavin Duffy wrote:

EverReady wrote:Kitty playing to her dose of a base

What's she shiteing on about now?

We are all going to die to death of Corona

Not to mention his bizarre commentary on housing for the youth. They’re the new celebrity economists.

Leinsterman wrote:

Gavin Duffy wrote:

EverReady wrote:Kitty playing to her dose of a base

What's she shiteing on about now?

She's merely written what Sam McConkey is saying. He's saying people from the US, UK and Portugal should quarantine for 14 days, use a hotel near the airport for it.
Also said this might have to be a 3 or even 10 year plan because this could be with us for a very long time.
He also said that the US outlook is appalling

The US comment shows the man does not understand data.

The US is appalling the same way Europe is/was. Talking about half the population is pure stupidity.

Floppykid wrote:Yes the US and UK are basket cases, but 3-10 years is misery porn.

The U.K. is quite clearly over the worst of it.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

Leinsterman wrote:

Gavin Duffy wrote:

EverReady wrote:Kitty playing to her dose of a base

What's she shiteing on about now?

She's merely written what Sam McConkey is saying. He's saying people from the US, UK and Portugal should quarantine for 14 days, use a hotel near the airport for it.
Also said this might have to be a 3 or even 10 year plan because this could be with us for a very long time.
He also said that the US outlook is appalling

The US comment shows the man does not understand data.

The US is appealing the same way Europe is/was. Talking about half the population is pure stupidity.

Appealing = spreading?

Assuming yes, the US is averaging 10k cases per million and it's still increasing daily cases every day.

The highest European country (outside the smallies) is Sweden with 7415 per million. They are seeing reducing spread. As is every other big European country.

The US has a better medical network so has taken longer to get to saturation but that just means they have a higher capacity for deaths before they get to unnecessary deaths.

Floppykid wrote:Yes the US and UK are basket cases, but 3-10 years is misery porn.

For the travel quarantine rules? The virus might be with us forever. We don’t know so 3 years might not be so crazy.

And it's not just a case of outliers pushing the averages up. 18 states are above that 10k mark. Another 13 are above Sweden.

Blackrock Bullet wrote:

Floppykid wrote:Yes the US and UK are basket cases, but 3-10 years is misery porn.

The U.K. is quite clearly over the worst of it.

You can’t say that. Nobody knows.