Bad beat/Moaning/Venting thread - Wordle Gummidge

[RichieM]

I've always urged my boss when hiring to favour immigrants over Irish people.

It generally takes drive, ambition and a strong work ethic to sacrifice your loved ones, friends and familiarity and emigrate for a better life.

We have guys from Mauritius working with us that are each worth about 5 Irish guys.

If I was hiring in Mauritius I would have the same thinking and favour hiring Irish guys and foreigners.

Visa paperwork is a pain in the balls.

[Hectorjelly]

No, it wasn't. I am fully aware of the tone and intent of the messages that I post.



I love how Denny asks you a simple question with no malice whatsoever to it, and you respond with a sly dig - You seem to be great and lightning fast to dish out judgement to others but don't seem to hold yourself to such high standards at times.

Anyhow, carry on at a gallop speed on your high horse.

The tone of every post you've made, including this one, has been hostile. Maybe I deserve it, but talking about high horses and your mickey is hostile. It's a shame I don't have the tact or powers of speech as Kayroo as Benny Hi Fi as they made basically the same point as me but in a much more approachable manner. You're shocked by a blind man working in a kitchen, but given it is happening and they did get insurance for it, perhaps its an opportunity to challenge your assumptions.

As for Denny, I asked him a simple question a few weeks ago, and he responded in precisely the same manner as I did. Also, at this stage, I don't think it's worth responding thoughtfully to people who support Trump or don't believe in climate change. I'm not going to convince them of anything. I don't think you can describe this as a "sly" dig.

[Lazare]

That is discriminatory though. If you set up an office in Mauritius and Irish travellers applies for a job I’m sure you would hire them. Is the job well paid ? It can be hard to find people with drive and ambition if it’s a min wage job with little chance of progress.

I suppose it is discriminatory, and generalising.

I think it's acceptable though. Hiring is effectively making a purchase, an investment in the best interest of the business. Immigrants in general are a better investment than locals, imo.

That's not to say we haven't hired some really great locals though.

In fact, I got a lesson in my own prejudices a couple of years ago. A stereotypical Finglas girl rocked up for an interview one day. Hair and nails, thick Dub accent.

I wasn't interviewing, but I didn't think she suited it, purely based on nothing but how she looked and talked.

She's still with us now and is absolutely amazing, probably the best hire we've made. So competent, calm under pressure, naturally gifted at customer service. A diamond.

Still feel bad for how I first thought of her.

[Hectorjelly]

Are you really surprised that when you go around calling everyone that doesn't agree with you racist, or racist by association, or conflate their views with racism, that they become hostile?

I thought this was worth responding to in detail. I have disagreed with just about everyone in this thread at some stage or another, but the only person I've ever called a racist was sickpuppy, who has spent years posting his racist thoughts here. (And incidentally he liked your post.)

In a recent discussion I made the point that passing around racist jokes is a racist act. You might not agree with this (and you'd be wrong), but this is not the same as me calling someone a racist. I don't understand your defensiveness on this topic.

[ArmaniJeans]

Random question on the WSOP Main Event being played on ggpoker.
Will it be names playing or pseudonyms? Like will we definitively know how say Phil Ivey has got on, or could he be playing as ladypokerfish4 and its only afterwards (if ever) that it's revealed who it is?

[oleras]

Im a racist because i laugh at racist jokes, im also a misogynist, atheist, homophobe seemingly for the same reasons.

Take me off the xmas card list.

How some people actually manage to sleep due to their wokeness is beyond me.

Live and let live...

[Denny Crane]

There's only one MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter in this thread and it's

SPOILER

...New Approach!

[DeeBrown]

Random question on the WSOP Main Event being played on ggpoker.
Will it be names playing or pseudonyms? Like will we definitively know how say Phil Ivey has got on, or could he be playing as ladypokerfish4 and its only afterwards (if ever) that it's revealed who it is?

Not sure where my memory is dredging this up from but I think players screen names will be what you see until the final table and their "real world" names kick in on the FT.

Best of luck against the lady fish.

[Mellor]

Imagine you're on a running track. 8 runners in this heat. 4 of them get a 50 metre head start. The other 4 complain and are told "it's not about who started where, it's about who is the best runner. Everyone is in the same heat, now show us what you've got"

If 4 people have a headstart, they are running a shorter race, therefore they aren't "in the same heat", it's more like a different race altogether. So no, it's not about who is the best runner. It's about who can win the race while the best runners are handicapped.

I know it's just a gross simplification, but that kinda of sloppy language is not something I'd associate with you,

I don't think HJ is saying ignore relevant ability outright. I would imagine he is expressing (albeit a little more belligerently than necessary) the view that the only effective way to correct historic advantages is to bestow, for a short period, a converse advantage on the previously marginalised group. This helps to address more in-built biases.

For example, Harvard Business School conducted a study that showed that minority candidates, particularly black ones, fared far better in getting interviews when they "whitened" their resumes. In another study it was shown that when two sets. of 1,000 resumes were sent to employers that were identical in every way except for the racial connotation of the name (James for one, DeShaun for another), the "white" names got the interviews at a rate of (I think) 10 to 1 over black names.

Now, if America (since the example comes from there) disproportionately advanced black people in HR and management roles for a while, do you think that the same issue would continue? Or would the new, diverse workplace then equalise out that bias and give everyone a fair shot?

I don't think it's necessary to name drop Harvard Business School to prove prejudice exists and has existed for a long time.

In order to correct history, we should overcompensate for disadvantaging marginalised group? I'm not sure if that is actually HJ's view, but lets go with it for now.
I can see the logic there. There is merit to that approach. But that's not equality, by definition it's still inequality to the opposite side of the spectrum. As you say, it's still a disproportionate bias. A bias in order to compensate for previous bias.

So while it has merits, presenting it as "true equality" or some other label is fundamentally wrong. It's short term offset inequality, in order to achieve long term equality. I think we can agree on that. That said, my question was about HJ's definition of equality. Not the best method to equalize society. So, I don't think that question is answered by the above.

The assumption that we need to correct history should probably be challenged also. Where you are talking about hiring people to an existing pool of people. Then yes, past biases should be corrected in order to achieve a equal pool today. If a company with a 50:50 male female split, has a 70:30 split at management level. Then they should probably focus on promoting from the female staff pool next. As they are correcting their current bias.

However, not every position relates to an existing pool or current bias . Many exist in isolation, and biasing future candidates to atone for past inequality would be extremely flawed. There have been 9 presidents of Ireland. Seven men and two women. In order to correct historic disadvantages, should female candidate be given an advantage? I don't so, that would be silly. Historic problems that exist entirely in the past should be left in the past. There is no existing pool of current presidents that should be correct. So it makes more sense to approach it as a clean slate, gender blind process from here onwards.

(FWIW, the Presidents is just an example. A little more complex than male v feamle)

Let's look at the "relevant ability" issue another way. If 100 black people and 100 white people with absolutely identical abilities apply for 100 jobs and we remove every other variable save for race; what do you think the hiring breakdown is likely to be?

.

If the assessment was made on ability, and only ability? The split would be 50:50 -/+ what variance comes out.
If you playing on my instinctively thinking of white advantage. That's a instinctive response based on historic inequality, not ability only assessment. You are using historically bias to criticise hypothetical equality hiring. You know is a flawed argument.

But if we did it on the "relevant ability" idea then the same thing happens except only to the people it's always happened to.

You'll have to explain the logic there.

Some people might say this is a manifestation of you racist subconscious.
Certainly if you think that continuing as per previous passes for "ability based assessment" then you missed the brief somewhere.

[Lao Lao]

The tone of every post you've made, including this one, has been hostile. Maybe I deserve it, but talking about high horses and your mickey is hostile. It's a shame I don't have the tact or powers of speech as Kayroo as Benny Hi Fi as they made basically the same point as me but in a much more approachable manner. You're shocked by a blind man working in a kitchen, but given it is happening and they did get insurance for it, perhaps its an opportunity to challenge your assumptions.

As for Denny, I asked him a simple question a few weeks ago, and he responded in precisely the same manner as I did. Also, at this stage, I don't think it's worth responding thoughtfully to people who support Trump or don't believe in climate change. I'm not going to convince them of anything. I don't think you can describe this as a "sly" dig.

Talking about my mickey is hostile? Genuine LOL at that one - I'm now split 50/50 whether you're just trolling or whether you are actually on a misplaced moral/social justice crusade.

If my posts are hostile, your posts are at best condescending. I've explained already that they weren't hostile but twice now, you've decided to tell me what my posts were meant to be. You've also taken something out of my initial post that I didn't say or mean but sure look it, you've a narrative to spout so whatever works for you.

Tapping out of this one as to paraphrase yourself, it's no longer worth responding, I'm not going to convince you of anything.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Lazare]

At the very least we need to change Lao Lao's tagline to 'hostile mickey' to honour this event

His tagine right now is 'member'

Just have to add in hostile

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Dice75]

I love it when HJ goes off on one

[Kayroo]

If 4 people have a headstart, they are running a shorter race, therefore they aren't "in the same heat", it's more like a different race altogether. So no, it's not about who is the best runner. It's about who can win the race while the best runners are handicapped.

I know it's just a gross simplification, but that kinda of sloppy language is not something I'd associate with you,

The classic error of the metaphor. Instead of engaging with the point you argue about the accuracy of the metaphor. It's intended to paint a mental picture later on Mellor when I talk about having to move backwards to create parity in starting positions, it was not an exposition on the nature of competitive track events. You also seem to have entirely missed the point that the race being different depending on where you start was, in fact, the point.

In order to correct history, we should overcompensate for disadvantaging marginalised group? I'm not sure if that is actually HJ's view, but lets go with it for now.
I can see the logic there. There is merit to that approach. But that's not equality, by definition it's still inequality to the opposite side of the spectrum. As you say, it's still a disproportionate bias. A bias in order to compensate for previous bias.

So while it has merits, presenting it as "true equality" or some other label is fundamentally wrong.

I never said it was true equality. I was making the point that a correction is required to achieve equality.

It's short term offset inequality, in order to achieve long term equality. I think we can agree on that.

Given this is my exact point, yes we can agree on that.

However, not every position relates to an existing pool or current bias . Many exist in isolation, and biasing future candidates to atone for past inequality would be extremely flawed. There have been 9 presidents of Ireland. Seven men and two women. In order to correct historic disadvantages, should female candidate be given an advantage? I don't so, that would be silly. Historic problems that exist entirely in the past should be left in the past. There is no existing pool of current presidents that should be correct. So it makes more sense to approach it as a clean slate, gender blind process from here onwards.

(FWIW, the Presidents is just an example. A little more complex than male v female)

This is a superb example of terrible thinking on this issue. You are choosing one bad example (which you do admit, in fairness) which is a total outlier in the overall scheme of things. You have inadvertently hit on a great argument against yourself. The political system doesn't give us enough women in positions of power. They are a little over 50% of the population and make up 22.5% of the Dail. It isn't about giving advantages to women, or minorities, or anyone else. It is about removing advantages that are already there for people who have not earned those advantages.

If the assessment was made on ability, and only ability? The split would be 50:50 -/+ what variance comes out.
If you playing on my instinctively thinking of white advantage. That's a instinctive response based on historic inequality, not ability only assessment. You are using historically bias to criticise hypothetical equality hiring. You know is a flawed argument.

It would be if the hypothetical I posed said ability, and only ability. But it didn't. It said ability plus race. When you factor in race it is simply a fact that the hiring split breaks, beyond variance, against minorities. I called on your instincts because you knew that without me having to tell you.

You'll have to explain the logic there.

Clearly.

If we did nothing other than said "the person with the best qualifications gets the job" then we are accepting racial and gender biases as being the norm. Not because we ourselves are racist or misogynist necessarily, but because the advantages, systemic and otherwise, are factored in before qualifications are obtained. It is much harder for someone from a low-income background with no family buy-in to education to go on and get an undergraduate degree. There are all sorts of factors that play into that. If they do manage to get that degree and they happen to be a member of a minority group then they will find it harder to get interviews, get jobs, get promotions, get elected, get the contracts, get funding, just to get ahead.

So a bland platitude about "sure, just base it on ability, that's true equality" is nonsense Mellor. That's accepting the status quo as acceptable when it clearly isn't to anyone other than the historically advantaged. So, to explain my logic, saying it is only about "relevant ability" means you will get far more candidates who come from the historically advantaged group because they have been given the chance to demonstrate that ability and to hone it, and then once in the workforce they are more likely to have been selected for an interview to discuss that ability and thus get the job. Then their kids will have better opportunities because the parent has the better job and the cycle perpetuates itself.

The only way to address this problem that has any sort of realistic chance of success is to start equalising the advantages, either by removing them from one group, which you cannot actually do, or by giving them to the other, which you can. If you don't do that. If you choose to leave the advantages in place and simply say "let the best man win" then you are tacitly accepting the in-built advantages and perpetuating them.

[Solksjaer!]

Talking about my mickey is hostile? Genuine LOL at that one - I'm now split 50/50 whether you're just trolling or whether you are actually on a misplaced moral/social justice crusade.

If my posts are hostile, your posts are at best condescending. I've explained already that they weren't hostile but twice now, you've decided to tell me what my posts were meant to be. You've also taken something out of my initial post that I didn't say or mean but sure look it, you've a narrative to spout so whatever works for you.

Tapping out of this one as to paraphrase yourself, it's no longer worth responding, I'm not going to convince you of anything.

Instead of getting on your high horse , why not extend a Laurel and Hardy handshake to HJ

[Solksjaer!]

If overthinking was an art I know who is the Leonardo on IPB.

Loved this..

[Denny Crane]

The political system doesn't give us enough women in positions of power. They are a little over 50% of the population and make up 22.5% of the Dail. It isn't about giving advantages to women, or minorities, or anyone else. It is about removing advantages that are already there for people who have not earned those advantages.

Complaining about the participation of women in politics in Ireland seems like a funny one to me. It's a democracy. If female participation is such an issue, then more people should vote along gender lines. More women should take over their local organisations and get women on the ticket. There's no great structural barrier here.

I'm open to changing my mind on it, but it seems like complaining about the gender divide in WSOP winners. maybe it's just that fewer women are interested in entering politics?

I could understand complaining about minorities not having proper representation. If you're a recent immigrant, there maybe be social and cultural barriers to entering politics, there's more work required in building up a network and getting to know Irish parish pump politics. But being the majority in a modern liberal democracy and complaining about your representation? Suggests it's not really a salient issue.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Mellor]

The classic error of the metaphor. Instead of engaging with the point you argue about the accuracy of the metaphor. It's intended to paint a mental picture later on Mellor when I talk about having to move backwards to create parity in starting positions, it was not an exposition on the nature of competitive track events. You also seem to have entirely missed the point that the race being different depending on where you start was, in fact, the point.

I didn't miss the point at all. Reading the start of the post,, I felt the point was so bad in relation to my question that I genuinely thought you were joking.
As I read further, I seen that you were making a point that didn't answer my question. Which makes the point equally bad, but for a different reason.

I never said it was true equality. I was making the point that a correction is required to achieve equality.

So it just a big elaborate strawman then. As I alluded to, that's beneath youu tbh.
and didn't answer the question that I asked HJ then. And as far as I can see, that question is still unanswered.

Given this is my exact point, yes we can agree on that.

As I said, that approach has a merit. But it doesn't answer my question.
Additional, sneering at others for wanting treating everyone equally, is pretty arrogant, and the above in no way justifies that imo.

This is a superb example of terrible thinking on this issue. You are choosing one bad example (which you do admit, in fairness) which is a total outlier in the overall scheme of things. You have inadvertently hit on a great argument against yourself. The political system doesn't give us enough women in positions of power. They are a little over 50% of the population and make up 22.5% of the Dail. It isn't about giving advantages to women, or minorities, or anyone else. It is about removing advantages that are already there for people who have not earned those advantages.

The point was intentionally bad to highlight your flawed logic. I choose the political system specifically for it's bias. Where is the argument against myself? You've failed to point one out.
I have no issue with knocking down all unfair advantages in the political system. We should strive for balance in the current pool. But operating a 100% bias in the opposite direction until all historical balance is equalised would be a terrible approach. I very much doubt you disagree with that.
I have zero issue with gender equal appointment going forward. Which could be a plus/minus for one groups of another based on the field.

It would be if the hypothetical I posed said ability, and only ability. But it didn't. It said ability plus race. When you factor in race it is simply a fact that the hiring split breaks, beyond variance, against minorities. I called on your instincts because you knew that without me having to tell you.

In that case, I was answering a different question. Or rather, I wasn't approaching it with the bias you you were asking for. When you you reduced the candidates to equal ability and a 50:50 race split.
I answered it would be 50:50 as race is not a factor for my opinion when assessing an applicant, genuinely I didn't have that "more white instinct you hinted at.
Mainly because it went over my head that I was supposed adopt a biased position when answering. Why would I do that?
We are supposed to be discussing what should happen, not what does happen.

If we did nothing other than said "the person with the best qualifications gets the job" then we are accepting racial and gender biases as being the norm. Not because we ourselves are racist or misogynist necessarily, but because the advantages, systemic and otherwise, are factored in before qualifications are obtained. It is much harder for someone from a low-income background with no family buy-in to education to go on and get an undergraduate degree. There are all sorts of factors that play into that. If they do manage to get that degree and they happen to be a member of a minority group then they will find it harder to get interviews, get jobs, get promotions, get elected, get the contracts, get funding, just to get ahead.

I'll have to stop you here. Where did I said "just the qualifications there, be grand"?
Those example of people not getting funding, not getting interviews are examples of inequality. You are arguing against the inequality of the system. Nobody has said it is ok.

So a bland platitude about "sure, just base it on ability, that's true equality" is nonsense Mellor. That's accepting the status quo as acceptable when it clearly isn't to anyone other than the historically advantaged.

The status quo is not based on ability. The example you gave was not based on ability.

So, to explain my logic, saying it is only about "relevant ability" means you will get far more candidates who come from the historically advantaged group because they have been given the chance to demonstrate that ability and to hone it, and then once in the workforce they are more likely to have been selected for an interview to discuss that ability and thus get the job. Then their kids will have better opportunities because the parent has the better job and the cycle perpetuates itself.

The only way to address this problem that has any sort of realistic chance of success is to start equalising the advantages, either by removing them from one group, which you cannot actually do, or by giving them to the other, which you can. If you don't do that. If you choose to leave the advantages in place and simply say "let the best man win" then you are tacitly accepting the in-built advantages and perpetuating them.

.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree that the people you describe have a massive leg up. And the cycle perpetuates. Impossible to avoid it.
But there's no reason that gender bias has to be enforced in interview process. I can't see any justification for that.
Deciding ahead of time an upcoming set of 10 positions will be split 5 male/5 female is an equal hire. Or, as I suggested before. The split may be biased to women to balance current pool of staff. I already said that's perfectly reasonable. But it's a very different situation where historically bias is no longer affecting the current pool.
Neither of those examples are gender blind.

But we're getting off track tbh. As I said, my question wasn't about how to fix the system. By pointing out the injustice in the system, and asking "what would the racist system do?" You are strawmanning.

I asked a really straightforward question as I was curious where the attitude was coming from. I'm still curious.

[Strewelpeter]

Complaining about the participation of women in politics in Ireland seems like a funny one to me. It's a democracy. If female participation is such an issue, then more people should vote along gender lines. More women should take over their local organisations and get women on the ticket. There's no great structural barrier here.

Is there not?
That's what all the male politicians say, I hear the women saying otherwise.

[hotspur]

Can anyone give the cliffs on the equality debate that's going on here (not reading these long multiquoted posts, no offence to anyone posting)?

[ComradeCollie]

https://i.imgur.com/GvWsn6um.jpg



What do we think?

Looks grand, I'm sure the redness will go soon enough. What did they say in the Hospital yesterday?

[brianmc]

Can anyone give the cliffs on the equality debate that's going on here (not reading these long multiquoted posts, no offence to anyone posting)?

structural/systemic imbalances exist/don't exist
positive discrimination is useful/not useful

[AndyFatBastard]

“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[Denny Crane]

Can anyone give the cliffs on the equality debate that's going on here (not reading these long multiquoted posts, no offence to anyone posting)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgqUQ17sYm0

[Mellor]

Can anyone give the cliffs on the equality debate that's going on here (not reading these long multiquoted posts, no offence to anyone posting)?

“Blind people with knives, could be dangerous”
”You are a racist”
“Equality should be about treating people equally”
”thats a narrow incorrect view”
”Equality is about treating people differently”
”Thats your hostile mickey talking”

[Tar.Aldarion]

Complaining about the participation of women in politics in Ireland seems like a funny one to me. It's a democracy. If female participation is such an issue, then more people should vote along gender lines. More women should take over their local organisations and get women on the ticket. There's no great structural barrier here.

I'm open to changing my mind on it, but it seems like complaining about the gender divide in WSOP winners. maybe it's just that fewer women are interested in entering politics?

I could understand complaining about minorities not having proper representation. If you're a recent immigrant, there maybe be social and cultural barriers to entering politics, there's more work required in building up a network and getting to know Irish parish pump politics. But being the majority in a modern liberal democracy and complaining about your representation? Suggests it's not really a salient issue.

It seems to me that this may be the case but may also be the case because of societal issues, extending to any career and applies to both men and women in different careers, but is much more prevalent against women.

[Tar.Aldarion]

On the blind chef thing, I went to a restaurant in pitch dark last year, all the staff were blind. Was amazing.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Mellor]

On the blind chef thing, I went to a restaurant in pitch dark last year, all the staff were blind. Was amazing.

I’ve heard about that place (and other place that are simply in the dark). Would be very interested to try it out. Just from a perception point of view.
What was it like?

[Guest]

Can anyone give the cliffs on the equality debate that's going on here (not reading these long multiquoted posts, no offence to anyone posting)?

Liberal people who seemingly don't understand the difference between equality and equity

Liberal people who seemingly don't understand that their liberal ideal doesn't really function unless there is some form of equity/equality in place before espousing the fairness of the market

One person of questionable self-esteem labeling people without using any of the basic follow up questions to see their viewpoint gets offended when spoken to in same manner he uses

His alt-right imbued alter ego weighing in with Roganesque sloganeering

...Various mudslinging from two sides of the same coin

[Strewelpeter]

On the one hand the discussion has been about creating equality of opportunity between those who have been gifted advantages and those who face systemic disadvantage. Can't see anything controversial there
On the other hand there are some who continue to fantasize that there is an agenda to promote some concept of equality of ability, why they would think that is beyond me its clearly nonsense and no examples are given.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[ComradeCollie]

955f800a7ce1e86893302a47341781d6--tintin-poster-album-tintin.jpg

[Solksjaer!]

Come on Hotspur read up and keep this fire lit . Tis fierce entertainment be god.

[ComradeCollie]

Are any of you old enough to remember when 'eeny meeny miny moe' had the n-word replaced with tiger? The wikipedia page is a bit lacking in details, as I think it must have been about 1979, around the same time the 'B&W minstrel show' was cancelled.

[Tar.Aldarion]

I’ve heard about that place (and other place that are simply in the dark). Would be very interested to try it out. Just from a perception point of view.
What was it like?

I actually think it was exactly one year ago today, here was my review from the time:

We were talking about having wines blindly on here recently, and telling the difference. So I did a blind tasting menu in Barcelona with paired wines this week, an amazing present from a wonderful girl I met a couple of months ago. I've always wanted to do one! I didn't know what to expect from the experience, I thought I'd be blindfolded but I wasn't. It was so much more than that.

We arrived to the swanky looking upstairs area to be greeted by a glass of Cava and an explanation of everything that would happen from the host. Being the only person there that did not speak Spanish (my partner in crime is Brazilian and they appear to get Spanish as a bit of a freebie, mildly kidding, she is great with languages but they have an easier time of it) he explained once to everybody and then stared directly at me, the gringo, to explain everything again while all and sundry stood waiting, hangry eyes boring into me. He seemed to give up at some point but she told me the rest.

The serving staff member came to greet us, she was blind, all the serving staff there are. It was to be an experience of what it was like for them. We were to forgo all things that could possibly emit light and were to stand in a particular order so that you could be matched sitting across a table with your dinner partner.

We lined up and started to go down a ramp underground, with no source of light whatsoever for the rest of the evening. To even navigate to dinner I had to put my hand on a girls shoulder, as we conga'd our way deeper.

It was an interesting experience even getting seated at that point, and hearing a full dining room of people that you can't see, being led by a blind woman that couldn't speak English, with no idea of the layout of the room was quite intriguing. I eventually found my seat, alongside a wall. I was quite happy to even touch anything around me after the void.

I could hear my partners voice from a mere few feet away but yet could see nothing, a voice with no source. I love it. It's quite funny how you act with each other at that point, unbridled of anybody seeing you. Reaching out for contact, touching faces and so on. You certainly feel a lot more free to do whatever you want. If you are into exhibitionism, this dinner is for you.

Over the next few hours we had an amazing time, each plate would come out with an assortment of "things" on it that you would gleefully stick your hands into, cutlery ignored. Initial confusion sets in as our plates seem different, only to quickly realise one of us will have to invert ours so that they are matching. Discussing what things are together is the most fun, to be hilariously wrong about some at the end! Especially as it is fine dining and they trick you, an aged tomato tastes of aubergine, a snap pea of a bamboo shoot, wtf is fennel anyway?

Glasses of wine are brought, instructions are relayed to me in Spanish and I hope for the best, my partner helping out a lot at this stage. Raise your hand, move your plate, a glass is coming! Lucky to have her or I wouldn't have a clue. Even setting the glass down becomes an endeavour. We settle for placing both glasses on one side of the table, leaving the other side open for contact.

Proprioception becomes apparent as you know exactly how your hands are shaped, where they are positioned, but nothing outward of yourself. A chair scrapes 30 feet away, a glass of wine falls to the floor next to us, that was destined for me. To the servers, this is all aspects of their life - you get an awareness of how hard it is for them, but mostly you get drunk.

For the wine colour taste test 3 glasses of wine are brought - one per two courses, we agree on the first. At the second, and I hoped this would happen, there was disagreement! I think one, she thinks another! We talk about why each of us thinks the way we do, she says she can nearly name the grape, she has a lot more experience in fine dining restaurants and with wine, I panic! Am I so sure of myself after all?! On the third wine we rosé again, agreeing. It makes me think that my second choice was wrong.

Once the dinner was complete we stood up and conga'd our way back out of the cavern. When I hit light my eyes exploded, and it took a little while to adjust. We were then shown pictures of what we ate which was very funny and finally all were gathered to guess about the wines. From the first wine reveal there were groans, already so many people had failed at the first hurdle, and these looked like people that drink wine for their living. The second one is the hardest we are told, it is chosen on purpose to confuse you. I am so smug when be brings the bottle up from behind the counter! A few hours of well earned jesting will ensue. On the third we get that one correct also, I'm not sure even one other person got them right and tbh, I was wavering with a lot of doubt. In general, over 90% of people get it wrong we are told. It's definitely more a paring and specific wine thing trying to trick you than anything. Headed off to our airbnb to play drunken Brazilian card games.

I ate a lot tasting menus in Barcelona, and other good meals - there was better food to be had but this was one of the most rewarding experiences I've ever had. A full body sensory experience as they had told us from the outset.

Obligatory picture:

[Solksjaer!]

Are any of you old enough to remember when 'eeny meeny miny moe' had the n-word replaced with tiger? The wikipedia page is a bit lacking in details, as I think it must have been about 1979, around the same time the 'B&W minstrel show' was cancelled.

I thought that was very compassionate. If he squeals let him go .

[Lao Lao]

At the very least we need to change Lao Lao's tagline to 'hostile mickey' to honour this event

Where can I sign the petition to make this happen?

[ionapaul]

Are any of you old enough to remember when 'eeny meeny miny moe' had the n-word replaced with tiger? The wikipedia page is a bit lacking in details, as I think it must have been about 1979, around the same time the 'B&W minstrel show' was cancelled.

In Galway we were definitely using the n-word in the early/mid-80s anyhow, and I remember the minstrels around in the 80s too!

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Solksjaer!]

Isnt it time we had some blind white superstars ? Dem blicks have cornered the market.

[Raoul Duke III]

Always feel uncomfortable with the 'white' label. Remember being in the UK for undergrad where the Irish were clearly the shit whites. Hence Roddy Doyle describing us memorably as 'the blacks of europe'. And then there's those hundreds of years of servitude under the English - I know none of us lived through that, but our ancestors did, being worse than second class citizens because of our ethnicity. And those generations of Irish-Americans following the famine being treated awfully. And then suddenly we're white in the same privileged historic group as some aryan fuck whose ancestors ran slave farms. I do realise the Irish now have some sort of privilege due to grown wealth, but mentally it feels odd to classify us along with some master racers which is what the 'white' label really means when it is used.

Irish people did some pretty appalling shit too. Check out our (horrible) record as slave drivers in the West Indian sugar plantations for example.

[ionapaul]

An estimated 200,000 Irish born soldiers fought for the North in the US Civil War (of course mainly due to economic reasons, but still) and the population of Ireland strongly supported the anti-slavery movement in the 19th century (as did the Brits, in fact they were the ones driving it worldwide), just for a bit of balance I don't feel too guilty about being Irish, I have to say, ain't got time for that! We as a people didn't profit enough from slavery, colonialism, etc... to let it keep us up at night IMHO.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Raoul Duke III]

My ancestors didn't though. They didn't leave Laois for the last 2000 years. Just farmed the land and burned a few witches for the common good. So why would I be judged based on my ethnicity? I'm not getting into something stupid like white lives matter or all lives matter. But the average Irish person comes from a long line of people who did nothing except farm bad land in semi-destitution and economic slavery for a few thousand years. Irish people have never been considered as regular 'whites'.

And maybe Polish people once did something bad. They seem like the type who would. But what has that got to do with my earlier example of the Polish lad working in centra living in a converted toilet. A not too far from the average example of a Polish person in Ireland. And that person has to apologise for his white privelige.

I was just getting at elshambo describing this as some sort of white privilege. It's a long way from those 'no blacks, no Irish, no dogs' posters hat now we've somehow inherited privilege as a result of our skin colour. The Irish specifically I'm talking about really, we were never really considered proper white anywhere in the other white world, always second class. I don't mind apologising for the sins of all white people, it's just that we've always been in the oppressed group, and it seems strange we're now in the same class as aryan fuckers and rednecks.

Oh yeah, not saying I feel any weight of historical guilt whatsoever.

I'd obviously much rather be Aryan than redneck though.

[Pat Mustard]

Irish people did some pretty appalling shit too. Check out our (horrible) record as slave drivers in the West Indian sugar plantations for example.

Must resist posting Father Ted Protestants Up To No Good Again meme

[Kayroo]

I asked a really straightforward question as I was curious where the attitude was coming from. I'm still curious.

I think there is a chance we are talking at cross-purposes and taking each other up wrong. If that's so I don't want to go down the road of getting more and more entrenched, as I respect your views on most things and would hate to think we were arguing on something we fundamentally agree on because we are having two different arguments.

I wasn't trying to answer HJ's question really, more fleshing out the position I thought he was making. We clearly disagree on how to address in-built racist/sexist/etc advantages but at least we agree that they have to be addressed. If I came across as condescending I apologise, it's an unfortunate side-effect of almost always seeming condescending. Your ad hominems were a little uncalled for if you ask me, as were mine.

[Strewelpeter]

Ole did you ever get this project finished or did I miss the grand opening?

BBQ hut update !

Was waiting over a week on a few bolts and screws, but they came in the end.

Big shout out to Mellor for his help.

I stained the joists and purlins last week and started the roof also.

SPOILER

Bondex ebony was the colour i think.

Then onto sheeting and Flashing, the flash band had me concerned, very few tutorials on youtube but in the end was not as bad as i had expected, could be better like most stuff, but im happy enough with it.





Half the sheets up this evening,



Certainly not sparing the screws !

[Theresa]

Almighty BBV

We have our club champs on next weekend and I’d like to run a book on it for shits n giggles.

I have a list of everyone’s handicap and potential flights.

Could someone help me create a book? Will send beers as a thank you.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[ComradeCollie]

Well I'm robbing that quote!

Maybe replace 'condescending' with 'nervous and insecure'.

[Lazare]

Another beautiful lady in my life, 6lb 14, am in love.

Mama and bombolito flying it

Restrictions lifted just two days ago too, so I can visit every day.

This day is one of the good ones.

[ArmaniJeans]

Almighty BBV

We have our club champs on next weekend and I’d like to run a book on it for shits n giggles.

I have a list of everyone’s handicap and potential flights.

Could someone help me create a book? Will send beers as a thank you.

This what you mean?

Work out the percentage chance of everyone based on your knowledge of their play. It should add up to exactly 100% (i.e., by definition someone will win, 100% guaranteed)
Then multiply every percentage you've come up with by 1.5 just to give yourself a bookies margin. e.g., if you reckon BillyBob has a 10% chance of winning then use 10 x 1.5 = 15%.
Finally use a site like this...
https://www.aceodds.com/bet-calculat...converter.html
…. to convert the % chance into odds. e.g., if you type 15% into the implied probability box in the top right it gives you odds of roughly 5.5/1 (or decimal/American equivalents if people are more comfortable with them).
Use a bigger multiplier than 1.5 if you want to minimise the risk of having a losing book.

[DeadParrot]

Another beautiful lady in my life, 6lb 14, am in love.

Mama and bombolito flying it

Restrictions lifted just two days ago too, so I can visit every day.

This day is one of the good ones.

Nice wan man.
Delighted for you

[DeadParrot]

ah they said it was grand.

Coincidentally, in the last 30 mins I found a clip in my father in laws ankle that has somehow remained hidden until now. Remember I commented on the wound not fully healing?
Hospital here we come. Or in the morning according to the Beacon.