Yes, in much the same way as Trump voters were taken in by talk of building border walls and bringing back the coal jobs etc etc etc. It was their stupidity and gullibility that allowed them to be manipulated that way. I suppose one could be picky and refrain from describing them as generally stupid and just stick to stupid in this particular respect.
- Status
Yes, in much the same way as Trump voters were taken in by talk of building border walls and bringing back the coal jobs etc etc etc. It was their stupidity and gullibility that allowed them to be manipulated that way. I suppose one could be picky and refrain from describing them as generally stupid and just stick to stupid in this particular respect.
However that is the drawback with referenda.
We have a representative democracy because, frankly, most people do not have the time or inclination to look into things involved with running a country in anything more than a cursory way. They have things that are more immediately important to them. My Mrs pretty much falls into that category.
Suddenly expecting them to understand what the outcome of a vote against the status quo would involve, especially for something as intricately woven into our economy as the EU is, was a bit of a big ask.
Much as I think people made foolish choices, I reserve my ire for the leaders of Leave. In much the same way I do for people taken in by scam artists and snake oil salesmen.
We have a representative democracy because, frankly, most people do not have the time or inclination to look into things involved with running a country in anything more than a cursory way. They have things that are more immediately important to them. My Mrs pretty much falls into that category.
Suddenly expecting them to understand what the outcome of a vote against the status quo would involve, especially for something as intricately woven into our economy as the EU is, was a bit of a big ask.
Much as I think people made foolish choices, I reserve my ire for the leaders of Leave. In much the same way I do for people taken in by scam artists and snake oil salesmen.
We already had a second vote - the general election. The two parties that did well both promised to implement the referendum result. The smaller parties that said they would attempt to reverse the referendum result all did really badly.
There have already been three "people's votes" concerning Brexit:
1. David Cameron won a general election promising in his manifesto to hold an in-out referendum.
2. The referendum itself.
3. The general election last year, when both the parties that did well stood on manifestos promising to implement the referendum result. The SNP and Liberal Democrats stood on manifestos of attempting to reverse the referendum result and both suffered sizeable losses.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
A good strategy, if only you hadn't alredy made clear how despicable the Leavers are. I think it betrays what you really think.
No, seriously. Take a long, serious look in the mirror. You are the thing you hate.
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
Don't mention the war!
Greebo
Critical Thinker
No. There hasn't been a second referendum, there has been a general election, of which the referendum was a big talking point, but it was a general election. One that has led to a coalition (in effect) by needing the support of the DUP, so it didn't consolidate TM's grasp of the "will of the people"
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
Besides, all of those votes took place before it was crystal clear to anyone who actually follows what's going on what a complete flustercluck BREXIT actually is.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
The leadership moving their money and citizenships offshore?
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
Yes, and Jacob Rees-Mogg saying it will take 50 years to gain any benefits from BREXIT.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,109
That's really not what he said at all.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,109
This.
Those that are pro brexit fall into two camps:
Those who already have a load of money for whom Brexit is not a threat to their lifestyle, Bori, Rees-Mogg, et al.
Those who have been fooled into thinking it's a good idea. These people will suffer economically in the post Brexit world.
I have not encountered, in real life, through news, message boards and other media, a single Brexiteer who does not fit into one of these two camps.
Perhaps there's a whole horde of silent brexiteers with excellent reasoning skills who haven't spoken up or publicised their reasoning because they don't want to. I find this unlikely.
At the moment, 100% of those I have read, talked to or interacted with fall into one of the above categories.
Belz...
Fiend God
See my following post. He didn't pick that analogy at random. Let's not kid ourselves here.
Lothian
should be banned
Quote respun
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,109
I think the choice of analogy expresses the depth of his feeling.
I don't think, however, that he said, in any way that:
He didn't. He was drawing a parallel. He considers the odds of a well informed brexiteer to be about the same as those of a morally upstanding rapist. It's an odds thing, not a comparative thing.
I believe you are not from the UK. I believe you are utterly unaware of the massive disinformation campaign run by the brexit team. I believe that you are unaware of just how thoroughly hoodwinked the low information voters here have been both over the last 40 years.
I have not found any reasonable reason why leaving the EU is a good idea. And I certainly have not found reasons that stack up well alongside the increasing number of negatives that seem to arrive weekly regarding the process.
Now, after spending the last 18 month asking those in favour of the idea why they think it's a good idea and receiving nothing but ignorance and utter falsehoods in return, after trying, earnestly, for those 18 months to find a good reason for the choice to leave. After explaining and presenting evidence to brexiteers that flatly and unequivocally counters their beliefs and still having them cling on to their views in the face of overwhelming and substantial evidence, what would you call those that are still in favour of a disastrous idea with no upsides and massive downsides that will certainly negatively impact them directly.
Seriously, what would you call them. I call them idiots because I've not found a counter example.
Please be aware that the 'idiot' label is not something arrived at without a great deal of investigation and thought.
Belz...
Fiend God
Indeed. The problem is that his feelings on this issue are, in my opinion, affecting his reason, to the point that he'd pick this specific analogy to refer to Leavers.
Whic is ridiculous.
I'm aware of it, but certainly not to the level of UK residents. Regardless of the campaign, though, you don't know the individual reasons why one might vote to Leave, and to simply assume that they are all idiots is both counter-productive and certainly factually wrong.
Have you considered that this is perhaps because you've defined Leave voters as unreasonable to begin with? Bias is a powerful thing.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,109
It really isn't. As I say above, I have not met a well informed Brexiteer voter. Not one. I have not read one, met one, talked to one, seen one on TV or anywhere else. Not a one.
Given that that's the case ant that there has been abundant opportunity for the well informed Brexit voter to make themselves known and they haven't, my conclusion is that those who are in favour of Brexit (those without a seven figure independent income) are ill infomred and poor thinkers.
Now, and this is the important bit:
I have not found or seen a single shred of evidence that shakes or even wobbles my position.
In light of this, what would you call those in favour of brexit?
It's really not. Have you found a good reason? Have you found someone in favour of the project that has a good reason.
I think that you're assuming that there must be something useful in or or it wouldn't be happening. This would be an error on your part.
Again - If you, like we - had spent 18 months trying to find reasonable reasons (because it's our coutry and, if we're going to do this, all of us would have liked some positivity to cling to) and had found there were no reasonable reasons, even amongst those in favour of the project, what would you call those who were in favour?
No. Why would I do that? If there were anything positive, I'd be clinging to it right now like a drowning man holding an inflated pair of jeans.
Look, my position is not fixed. If I find a decent set of reasons that aren't spurious and ephemeral claims of 'sovereignty' or 'democracy' then I@ll reconsider, but in the lat 18 months, the sum total of positive news about brexit has been zero.
Seriously, in light of the above, when the economic future of my country is bleak and the very union is in danger of dissolution in pursuit of a project with no upside, what would you call those in favour?
I'm afraid 'Idiot' covers it nicely. Sorry.
Last edited:
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Hell when has a single Brexit supporter presented a consistent workable plan for what brexit would even look like? Its all no borders with Ireland but full borders everywhere but nothing that would actually inconvenience me.
Belz...
Fiend God
"I don't know a single [X]" has never been much of an argument, 3point14. It's been used to support or slander a lot of groups in the past, but what does it really say? Not much.
Fair enough.
In light of your opinion of them? I wouldn't call them anything.
I found at least 3 potentially good reasons, discussed already in this thread, but they were handwaved away.
And also, not every position need to be factual to be reasonable, as I've argued before. For instance, you could have two people arguing; one saying that more money should be put into daycare centers so they can buy more stuff for the kids, help the parents pay for the services and increase the wages of the workers; and another who thinks parents should be entirely responsible for paying these centers, free market and all that. Which of these two positions is fact-based? Neither. They're both based on how these two hypothetical people view the world. Is either of those two positions unreasonable?
It would be, but it isn't what I'm doing.
Because bias is something ALL humans have. That's rule 1 of skepticism: don't trust your own assumptions.
Everybody says that.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,109
I have not seen a single 'x' is a brilliant argument.
Jesus, how do I posit arguments if not from what I have seen or not seen.
How solid do you think this argument is:
----
I've never seen, nor seen reasonable evidence of a flying elephant. I have looked, I have been to Africa and read the works of many prominent Elephant experts and I have not seen, anywhere, any evidence of flying elephants.
My conclusion is that there are no flying elephants.
----
This is an exact parallel of my thoughts on Brexit, using the same train of logic, but just in regard to flying elephants rather than good reasons for Brexit.
At what point am I allowed to call those who state with certainty that flying elephants exist, 'idiots'?
I have not seen X, in spite of extensive searching for evidence of X is an entirely valid argument. Why on earth do you think it's not.
Last edited:
- Status