|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Those who vote differently
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You're missing the point, which is that for some people it's not about prosperity at all, it's about national identity.
You do know that "The Village Green Preservation Society" was harking back to a golden age that never was? All the symptoms, but the underlying conditions were totally different.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was merely illustrating that for some people national identity is more important than personal prosperity.
... for some people it's not about prosperity at all, it's about national identity.
Which is all fine and dandy. But, voting whether to stay in or leave the EU was not about national identity at all - unless you consider national identity is threatened by a small number of immigrants (which is simply bizarre for a nation with a history that means practically everyone is descended from an immigrant within the last 2000 years - especially the English). And, I can't really see how an argument along the lines of "we don't want those foreigners here because it will make us less British" can be anything other than racist.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was merely illustrating that for some people national identity is more important than personal prosperity.
... for some people it's not about prosperity at all, it's about national identity.
Which is all fine and dandy. But, voting whether to stay in or leave the EU was not about national identity at all
Sovereignty, and whether a country can make its own laws, presumably form part of any discussion about national identity?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
however who wants to settle for 5th?
Why not go for 1st?
China is on course to become 1st for the simple reason that it has a lot more people. Do you want to try inviting a billion people onto these islands? Will they all come?
quote:
We have the chance to do that outside of the EU, but the EU would never allow us to do that.
Not if we tighten up our immigration policy.
Who wants to settle for 5th? Anyone who isn't a dickwaver.
1st per capita might be a sensible aim as long as we can be 1st equal.
Actually we were and still are the 2nd largest economy in the world. Until we leave the EU when it will be the 3rd largest economy without us.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought that the Brexit argument was that national identity is threatened by a superordinate power such as the EU, which can make its own laws and regulations.
One of the problems with this argument, is that it suggests that outside the EU, the UK could simply make its own. In an age of globalization and trade deals, this seems unlikely.
It also seems like a guess. I suppose politics can be based on guesswork sometimes, but it has to be dressed up with certainty, e.g. make Britain great. Yeah, but how? By inviting China to buy a lot of our basic infrastructure, maybe. Then Britain will achieve oriental greatness.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I had to smile when a friend suggested to me that local areas could train up local English youth to do various jobs, e.g. agricultural, health, catering, construction. How about the cost of this training? He suggested that an EU grant would cover it. That's the naughty step for you.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's fantasy time.
No. It's disruptive, as in a disruptive technology. Whatever happens from now will be different.
Mate, you're like a middle aged man who has just left his wife, put down a deposit on a sports car and is bragging to his mates about how he will soon be shagging that hot little property in H.R. Meanwhile the missus is on the blower to Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne to ensure that she gets to keep the house and that Mr Midlife will carry on ponying up for the school fees.
Frankly, the whole "Mr Hubris, have you met my esteemed colleague Mr Nemesis" bit would be mildly amusing if it was someone else's country involved.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was merely illustrating that for some people national identity is more important than personal prosperity.
... for some people it's not about prosperity at all, it's about national identity.
Which is all fine and dandy. But, voting whether to stay in or leave the EU was not about national identity at all
Sovereignty, and whether a country can make its own laws, presumably form part of any discussion about national identity?
Do you really think laws are made for the benefit of those who elect the lawmakers? It may not have happened in Brussels but it certainly hasn't in Britain, where the rich and powerful are determined to keep everything just so. The EU by contrast have improved the lot of the ordinary man and woman almost as much as the Attlee government did. I suppose that's what the Brexiteers want removed.
Sovereignty my arse.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, in the words of Vladimir Ilyich, who whom?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was merely illustrating that for some people national identity is more important than personal prosperity.
... for some people it's not about prosperity at all, it's about national identity.
Which is all fine and dandy. But, voting whether to stay in or leave the EU was not about national identity at all
Sovereignty, and whether a country can make its own laws, presumably form part of any discussion about national identity?
Do you really think laws are made for the benefit of those who elect the lawmakers? It may not have happened in Brussels but it certainly hasn't in Britain, where the rich and powerful are determined to keep everything just so. The EU by contrast have improved the lot of the ordinary man and woman almost as much as the Attlee government did. I suppose that's what the Brexiteers want removed.
Sovereignty my arse.
This seems tragic and sad to me, that so many have-nots in areas such as the North, seem to have swallowed the old lie that they will now be enriched by a new Tory dispensation, or in fact, a right wing dispensation. Really?
I keep seeing clips on TV news from places like Great Yarmouth and Sunderland, where people in the street seem convinced that outside the EU and with fewer immigrants, the economy will work for them. Meanwhile, austerity carries on, the poor and the disabled carry on being spanked.
I understand 'neither weep nor mourn, but seek to understand', but maybe I should be allowed to mourn a bit. The postwar consensus is fucked.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm not talking prosperity, I'm talking quality of life. So much about Germany is better I'd relocate like a shot if I were 20 years younger.
Tomayto, tomahto. My comment works for either.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm at work so can't post extensively but to address one point, yes we are probably the worlds 5th strongest economy with good trading power, however who wants to settle for 5th?
Why not go for 1st?
We have the chance to do that outside of the EU, but the EU would never allow us to do that.
Alienating ourselves from the rest of our continent, and isolating former allies is very unlikely to bring many bonuses economically, politically or socially to the United Kingdom, in my opinion. Quite the contrary.
And where the fuck was this 'Great' Great Britain you imagine existed somewhere in an equally imaginary past? Dates and names, please? You've already had it explained to you what 'Great Britain' actually means, so any play on the words has got to be at the very least metaphorical.
I'm with the poster who thought Britain was great in the period just after the second world war, when serious attempts were made to look after the vulnerable in society through welfare reforms, and the new NHS was coming into play. In addition, provision was being made for getting working class people into higher education, and there was a whisper of a promise of beginning to eliminate the elitist monopolies in politics, education and business.
Everything else before that and since then was just an inept greedy mixture of capitalism and the Poor Law.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Sovereignty, and whether a country can make its own laws, presumably form part of any discussion about national identity?
Do you really think laws are made for the benefit of those who elect the lawmakers?
How is that relevant to what Anglican't said? Wanting the British government to be free to make its own laws is not affected by which laws it happens to make.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Sovereignty, and whether a country can make its own laws, presumably form part of any discussion about national identity?
Do you really think laws are made for the benefit of those who elect the lawmakers?
How is that relevant to what Anglican't said? Wanting the British government to be free to make its own laws is not affected by which laws it happens to make.
WTF? Few people vote for people/ideas they think will disadvantage them. Those that voted for Brexit were not doing so for a concept, but for their own perceived benefit.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Been watching the match and Alf Garnet would be turning in his grave... pity.
Anyway, I've answered the OP as I see it. The rest is just screaming and wailing from those who lost the referendum. I can get that anywhere.
Bye for a while.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Just do us all a favour, and make it a very long while.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WTF? Few people vote for people/ideas they think will disadvantage them.
Well, it's nice to know I'm so unusual then, seeing as I support higher taxes for the wealthy even though I am now rather well off. Because guess what? I see other kinds of advantages from the supposed disadvantage of me paying more money.
Whatever one thinks of the merits of Brexit, this outright denial that it has anything to do with national identity or sovereignty is quite bizarre. Of course it does.
And history is littered with cases of people who wanted self-determination even while they were being told it wouldn't be good for the economy, or whatever. As if that was the only form of benefit possible.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Few people vote for people/ideas they think will disadvantage them. Those that voted for Brexit were not doing so for a concept, but for their own perceived benefit.
I read somewhere, not on the Ship I don't think, the comment on the US election that people feeling left behind by the system were voting, not so much to improve their own lot, but to make the lot of those they perceived as better off than them worse.
I thought that was both sad and insightful.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I'm glad that at least one person (orfeo) understands what I'm on about.
[ 06. January 2017, 22:18: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WTF? Few people vote for people/ideas they think will disadvantage them. Those that voted for Brexit were not doing so for a concept, but for their own perceived benefit.
If the aim of the exercise is to understand why people act in ways which seem to you irrational, and those people give their reasons, and you say no, those can't possibly be your reasons - then I don't think the exercise is going to get very far ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WTF? Few people vote for people/ideas they think will disadvantage them.
Well, it's nice to know I'm so unusual then,
See the first word after the exclamation? Few. Not none, Few.
quote:
seeing as I support higher taxes for the wealthy even though I am now rather well off. Because guess what? I see other kinds of advantages from the supposed disadvantage of me paying more money.
You see what? Advantages. You are saying you vote because you see advantages.
quote:
Whatever one thinks of the merits of Brexit, this outright denial that it has anything to do with national identity or sovereignty is quite bizarre. Of course it does.
Never said nationalism was absent from the motivation.
National Identity and sovereignty do not preclude self-interest, usually quite the opposite.
quote:
And history is littered with cases of people who wanted self-determination even while they were being told it wouldn't be good for the economy, or whatever. As if that was the only form of benefit possible.
Again benefit.
I am not saying that no one ever votes against there own personal interests, just that it is not common. And those who do tend to list more to port than starboard.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WTF? Few people vote for people/ideas they think will disadvantage them.
Well, it's nice to know I'm so unusual then,
See the first word after the exclamation? Few. Not none, Few.
Yeah, I did see that. And I responded accordingly, which you would see if you lowered the outrage level for a while. Which bit of the word "unusual" made you think I was claiming to be unique?
As for your whole advantages/disadvantages shtick, the whole problem with it is that it immediately collapses in the real world where no one voting choice is a total win. You seem to have no conception about the WEIGHING UP process that goes into decisions.
My support for higher taxes for myself is based on a view that the loss of money for myself is not as important as other advantages I perceive from the use of that money elsewhere.
I'm going to reverse your claim about people not voting for a disadvantage and argue that almost EVERYONE votes to disadvantage themselves in some way or another. They do it because they weight it up against a perceived advantage and decide that the benefits outweigh the costs.
In the next few weeks I'm probably going to be something like 25,000 dollars poorer. I will also have a new car.
[ 07. January 2017, 05:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WTF? Few people vote for people/ideas they think will disadvantage them. Those that voted for Brexit were not doing so for a concept, but for their own perceived benefit.
Yes, but they weren't voting on 'I want to be royally screwed by the good old English elite rather than a bunch of foreigners', that was just the end result.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I remember Hameron stating that a vote for Leave would be equivalent to an 'act of national self-harm'. Rather a foolish thing to say given the current popularity of self harm.
Many people were not voting for themselves, they were voting for there children and there children,s children. OK, this might well turn out to be utterly misguided as are many popular movements do, but this was nevertheless the fact of the matter.
For a whole manner of reasons something had been brewing in a significant proportion of the Electorate. The cork would have blown eventually even if Hameron hadn't produced a bottle opener.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think for the vast majority of people "voting for your own interests" is actually voting for the interests of immediate family and other "people like us" (at least what they consider to be best). The number of people who do anything just for themselves, rather than to benefit at least their children as well, is vanishingly small - and, I'm sure that extends to voting as well.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I am not qualified to speak for the majority who voted Leave. Of the small circle I interacted with most seemed level headed and looked likely to vote Remain. The Leave enthusiasts/rabids appeared to have been struck by some sort of fever or contagion, much like Bojo thought would hit us during the 2012 Olympics when he was Mayor.
In hindsight I believe the riots of a year earlier may have proved a better indicator of a lurking contagion that gave him a completely unexpected victory last Summer.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As for your whole advantages/disadvantages shtick, the whole problem with it is that it immediately collapses in the real world where no one voting choice is a total win. You seem to have no conception about the WEIGHING UP process that goes into decisions.
I fully understand that few choices are perfectly beneficial.
quote:
I'm going to reverse your claim about people not voting for a disadvantage and argue that almost EVERYONE votes to disadvantage themselves in some way or another.
I agree. Though would argue that they feel the balance is mostly towards the beneficial.
quote:
They do it because they weight it up against a perceived advantage and decide that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Here is where we part. IMO, far fewer people think things through thoroughly than you seem to think.
And yes, I am outraged. This is not purely academic to me.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WTF? Few people vote for people/ideas they think will disadvantage them. Those that voted for Brexit were not doing so for a concept, but for their own perceived benefit.
Yes, but they weren't voting on 'I want to be royally screwed by the good old English elite rather than a bunch of foreigners', that was just the end result.
No, that was not just the "result", it was plain as day for anyone who cared to look. Those pushing hardest for Brexit are also those seeking to dismantle the NHS and generally push legislation that favour the moneyed classes.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
This is not some kind of sport or gladitorial contest, so the question of winners and losers is entertaining to some, but otherwise immaterial.
The vote in favour of leaving the EU in a referendum was just that: a vote in favour of a future action. It did not establish the timing of our departure, or the terms on which we are leaving. It certainly didn't cause us to leave, which is why the economy hasn't nosedived yet - that and the fact that so much of the economy is based on retail and we are yet to notice the erosion of the land underneath us.
What we know already is that our current European partners are getting restless and impatient, we have no clue about the terms on which or process by which we will depart, still less anything which might even vaguely resemble a plan, and that drawing one up will cost huge amounts of money, and the time and attention of the civil service's best minds. So good luck to anyone looking to develop actual public services in the next ten years. Yes, others will have excellent ideas about public services, but it would take good civil service brains to implement them well, and they will not be available, and neither will the funds we will be spending shooting ourselves in the foot.
Meanwhile, the rest of life will continue, in an increasingly depleted form because of the ebbing of resources and goodwill from these shores. We are turning into an increasingly nasty version of ourselves, and this is not going unnoticed by those who currently live here.
To be honest, this is a road to ruin for everyone. No prize is available for voting, whichever way you voted.
The massive difference between this and the Drumpfocalypse is that there is a process for implementing that - it's a carcrash that is now happening, in agonising slow motion. Britain's leaving the EU is a nebulous series of ideas floating around in a kind of political quantum space, looking for a loophole through which to crash through into reality. If we can carve it well, it will only be moderately destructive. If we don't carve it at all before it crashes through, the scale of the destruction is both unknown and as yet unimaginable, because we have no paramaters. Sadly it could be unimaginable in the more conventional sense.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WTF? Few people vote for people/ideas they think will disadvantage them.
Well, it's nice to know I'm so unusual then, seeing as I support higher taxes for the wealthy even though I am now rather well off. Because guess what? I see other kinds of advantages from the supposed disadvantage of me paying more money.
Me too. Christians shouldn't be voting selfishly but for what the bishops have called 'the common good'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
...and now for something more directly on-topic. The point I was trying to make is that leaving the EU is an action with consequences, not an opinion. If it leaves us worse off, it will leave us all worse off, and not discriminate between those who voted for or against leaving. So I will continue to engage those who voted in favour of leaving the EU with a complete lack of deference for the vote, because the actions have not happened yet and there is a great deal which can still be done to remove the threat altogether and potentially to mitigate its effect if it does happen. But we have not reached the point at which it must happen yet, never mind the point at which it has happened, and those who will not accept this will be treated as they deserve. I will point out their arrogance and wilful stupidity, because they are arrogant and wilfully stupid.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I will point out their arrogance and wilful stupidity, because they are arrogant and wilfully stupid.
Does calling them arrogant and wilfully stupid make it more likely that they will change their mind?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I will point out their arrogance and wilful stupidity, because they are arrogant and wilfully stupid.
Does calling them arrogant and wilfully stupid make it more likely that they will change their mind?
I would hope to keep things at the level of pointing out, as often as necessary, that things are not where they think they are, in that the die is not as cast as they think, and if no mechanism can be found then nothing has happened.
What is your proposed alternative? No nasty names? Sounds decidedly infantile to me.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Sounds decidedly infantile to me.
I do get the irony of this, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. It can take a lot to loosen people from entrenched opinion - sometimes dynamite works, sometimes slicks of oil. And sometimes one's oil is in short supply and all one has is explosive.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I will point out their arrogance and wilful stupidity, because they are arrogant and wilfully stupid.
Does calling them arrogant and wilfully stupid make it more likely that they will change their mind?
No. If you want to overcome objections, which may well be based emotion, prejudice or misinformation, let alone self-interest, you have to supply evidence-based information. Even if your opposition doesn't.
Then again, if people don't want to believe the evidence, you really are up against it. Can't knock them for it. Military commanders are some of the worst for adhering to their prejudices and preconceptions in the face of information, which explains why "Military Intelligence" has such a poor reputation.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Yes, but they weren't voting on 'I want to be royally screwed by the good old English elite rather than a bunch of foreigners', that was just the end result.
No, that was not just the "result", it was plain as day for anyone who cared to look.
Yes, but not through the lens of those voting along those lines, who worked with a different set of pre-suppositions (as can be seen in a small way in this thread).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Sounds decidedly infantile to me.
I do get the irony of this, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. It can take a lot to loosen people from entrenched opinion - sometimes dynamite works, sometimes slicks of oil. And sometimes one's oil is in short supply and all one has is explosive.
I think people are more likely to change their minds if the cost of doing so is small.
If one's case is that voting Leave is a product of small-mindedness, delusion, xenophobia, etc, then the 'cost' of changing one's mind from Leave to Remain is to admit that hitherto one was a small-minded deluded xenophobe.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I will point out their arrogance and wilful stupidity, because they are arrogant and wilfully stupid.
Does calling them arrogant and wilfully stupid make it more likely that they will change their mind?
Well I'm only one out of 17,000,000 voices, but I can't say it works for me. It seems to me more of a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I will point out their arrogance and wilful stupidity, because they are arrogant and wilfully stupid.
Does calling them arrogant and wilfully stupid make it more likely that they will change their mind?
Well I'm only one out of 17,000,000 voices, but I can't say it works for me. It seems to me more of a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Well, you are in danger of making my point for me. My point being that this is far more than a slanging match between two opposing arguments, and that in fact the points to watch out for are the approach of our biggest trading partners, who are getting fractious, and the approach of those about to start negotiating bilateral trade deals with the UK on its own. Without astute negotiators and a keen appreciation of the reality of this possibility, we risk being stripped of every single piece of employment and environmental protection law in pursuit of free trade, and becoming precarious inhabitants of a stinking, uninhabitable lump of rock.
Perhaps we can find something more useful to do than sling insults at either other, and/or preen?
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
My point being that this is far more than a slanging match between two opposing arguments
Does anyone think this is all it is? (Assuming that by 'slanging match' you mean it's all just words.)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Back when I was a Good Little Lutheran, I told my pastor in a Bible study that I thought the process of "witnessing" (evangelizing?) was like talking someone down off a window ledge. For some folk the right approach might be to order them back inside, for some to gently reason with them, for some to step out on the ledge yourself and hold onto them, for some to distract them until someone can sneak up behind them and grab them.
(My pastor's approach was more or less, you know you aren't supposed to be up there, so when you fall on your head, nobody will feel sorry for you. It was less than one hundred percent effective. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) )
Even so in the current situation. God or Gaia or evolution saw fit to equip us with rational brains that are often at the mercy of whatever emotional riptides the sacks of meat we walk around in might hit us with. Hard drives trapped inside meat sacks. To attempt interaction with people who agree with us about Jesus but disagree with us about Trump, Brexit, immigrants, Putin, what have you, we have to take the meat sack into consideration. First our own, and then our neighbor's. It's not going to go away, it gets more problematic when ignored, and (in my opinion) it is an integral part of our spiritual health to honor the union of hard drive and meat sack.
I'm not saying let the meat sack lead the conversation, understand-- quite the opposite. To strategize around the interference of the meat sack. Or even to find ways that speak to the meat sack. But pretending it is not there will yield inefficient results.
So, part of that might be steeling your jaw and listening to opinions you find odious-- not to find common ground, but to listen for hints of what the meat sack might be influencing the hard drive to say. To respond to them efficiently. People are not walking interfaces for ideas, they are people. Any approach that forgets that is bound to fail.
[ 08. January 2017, 00:04: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Wow, hard drive in a meat sack. That image will take a while to go away.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Allow me to quote RooK, then:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
The thing is, people and ideas are not static with respect to each other. And, fundamentally, the differentiation of the two is absolutely necessary for a society to flourish.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
KellyAlves: quote:
So, part of that might be steeling your jaw and listening to opinions you find odious-- not to find common ground, but to listen for hints of what the meat sack might be influencing the hard drive to say.
Well this thread was about understanding people who did things like vote for Brexit. And I have suggested how one might try to reach out to them, but maybe there is a precondition.
Because I never found the idea of Brexit odious. Mistaken, unwise . . yes. But not odious. Maybe some of those who seem to need to anathematize Brexiteers do find the idea odious, which just seems odd to me, but different folks different strokes as they say.
I have rarely tried to understand points of view that I find odious, and I almost find the idea of doing so distasteful, because there's no point in reading their books just to condemn. You've really got to put yourself into the mindset of thinking there really may be something in what they say.
I tried this with a book by Dutch academics which attempted to carve out a niche for legitimate paedophilia (obviously of a non invasive kind!) and found it an unpleasant and in the end unproductive experience.
BTW I'm actually not suggesting that the Thunderbunks of this world think Brexiteers morally equivalent to paedophiles, before I get accused of that! But I think there is a point here.
You can't bridge across arbitrarily large gaps.
[ 08. January 2017, 08:35: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Because I never found the idea of Brexit odious. Mistaken, unwise . . yes. But not odious. Maybe some of those who seem to need to anathematize Brexiteers do find the idea odious, which just seems odd to me, but different folks different strokes as they say.
Personally, I do not find Brexit in and of itself odious, but entirely dependent on the kinds of presuppositions that lead people to take that position.
As I said on the other thread, I know a few people voted Brexit on the basis of well reasoned arguments - the majority of those were people who believed the EEA in some form was preferable, and were mostly shocked when Gove signaled a move against this direction (at least one of them chose to abstain as a result). The rest are paleo-conservatives who are approximately where someone like Peter Oborne would be on the political spectrum, who even when wrong - to my thinking - are wrong in interesting ways that challenge. One of them is heavily sold on what he feels is the un-reformable nature of the EU, yet he's equally convinced that the UK is in major need of reform - which seems to me to be an entirely honorable set of positions to hold.
I disagree with all of them frequently, but am able to continue to dialogue with them, even though I fully accept that none of us might ever shift position.
There are others I know who seemed to believe the 'Breaking Point!' and "Turks are coming!" arguments, and seem to be mostly immune to reason, I don't respect that so much.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Christians shouldn't be voting selfishly but for what the bishops have called 'the common good'.
Which "common good" are you talking about? The kind that's rooted in financial prosperity, or the kind that's rooted in self-determination and sovereignty?
Both are valid views of "the common good", but lead to very different views about Brexit.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I voted Remain, as the motto at the bottom of my posts would suggest. I would vote Remain if another referendum were held. I will probably go on regarding Brexit as objectively a daft decision to the end of my days.
However, it isn't inherently either wicked or sinful to have voted Leave. It was, if one's reason for doing so is the fruit of being a xenophobe. That's a different question. There might be wicked or sinful reasons why some people voted Remain, though it's harder to see what they would have been.
The existence of the universal franchise means that we are all individually responsible for the way we vote. We are not however, all guilty because of the way other people voted. There might, though, be an argument that those who despite having the vote, don't exercise it, are individually guilty of the consequences, whichever way the majority falls.
In almost all elections etc. we are entitled to make our own mind up how we vote, and how we will weight factors like policy, credibility, competence and integrity.
There comes a point where being knowingly stupid does tip over the edge into wickedness, but when it comes to voting, those occasions are fairly rare. It is very rare indeed that one can say that voting one way or another is actually wicked, unless one is doing so for a motive which was already wicked before the time came to vote.
That doesn't entirely answer the issue though that for most of us, whether in voting or in all sorts of other fields in life, there will be some things that other people will think or feel that are so alien to our own take on things that it's difficult to identify with them or understand how a person can possibly be like that. Most of the things other people think or feel, it's fairly easy to understand how they do - it is just that they've come down on the different side of a fence to us. They've weighed things in the balance but the weights they give are slightly different to ours. We know that under some circumstances we might think or feel as they do.
It's fairly idiosyncratic which issues for us are the ones we actually can't identify with, which are the ones that we just don't get.
As it happens, on Brexit, for me, suspicion of EU bureaucracy is not one of those. It's just that on balance, and from practical experience, I think the upside of it has been markedly better than some people rate it. For example, the EU regime for public tendering just is, beyond hesitation, much, much better than the rubbish regime we had before.
However, for me, sovereignty is one of these. I just don't get the sovereignty argument. And as a Christian, nationalism per se is a negative anyway.
That's Brexit, but when it comes to Trump, as I've said several times in the last few months, I think that unless one were a relative who is sort of obliged to vote for him, it actually was inherently sinful to vote for Trump. It may be the only vote I know of in my lifetime, where I think one can say that.
I could explain this further if anyone really wants me to, but this post is already a bit long, it's late and I'm off to bed.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Christians shouldn't be voting selfishly but for what the bishops have called 'the common good'.
Which "common good" are you talking about? The kind that's rooted in financial prosperity, or the kind that's rooted in self-determination and sovereignty?
Both are valid views of "the common good", but lead to very different views about Brexit.
They reject material propsperity as a good in itself. Justice and peace are more important. So is the value of self-determination as in the original ideals of the European project. Most imnportantly, it lies in the freedom for each person to undertake his/her spiritual journey.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Returning to the OP … People are entitled to their own point of view and just because it’s different to mine’ it doesn’t make them stupid / arrogant / stuck in a London bubble / re-moaning. It doesn’t mean they haven’t thought things through, need correcting or are a stranger to facts. It may be comforting for me to think that, but it’s rather rude. And usually isn’t true.
Rev T and campaigned passionately for remain during the referendum. Members of our family voted leave. At least two of them may be Ukip supporters. Depending on who it is, we either argue the toss with them affectionately, but agree to differ OR work on the basis of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and change the subject. Unless someone is an out and out racist or similar, life seems to short. And it would be rather dull.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
I look forward to Britain being 'Great' again. I should just like some detail as to how we shall identify our greatness when we get there, and also the road map for our transition to that glorious status.
It would be helpful if someone would remind me when we were last 'Great' as it would help me visualise where we are going.
Was it: 1955, 1935, 1914. I really would like to know.
My concept of a 'Great' Britain would be something quite unparalleled in our history. First marker on the road towards it would be a fully funded and functioning N.H.S. Any politician who promises me that first step (and isn't lying) will get my vote. Simple.
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Christians shouldn't be voting selfishly but for what the bishops have called 'the common good'.
Which "common good" are you talking about? The kind that's rooted in financial prosperity, or the kind that's rooted in self-determination and sovereignty?
Both are valid views of "the common good", but lead to very different views about Brexit.
They reject material propsperity as a good in itself. Justice and peace are more important. So is the value of self-determination as in the original ideals of the European project. Most imnportantly, it lies in the freedom for each person to undertake his/her spiritual journey.
Just to add: Interdependency, poor and vulnerable come first, love of neighbour = global, our stewardship of environment
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
