Ship of Fools: Those who vote differently

Thread: Those who vote differently Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020037

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

This is coming out of a couple of very angry threads in hell, and I really don't want to tread on those toes. Rather I think there is also a place for more reasoned discussion around this.

Now I should make it clear that I find voting for Trump or for Brexit to be completely incomprehensible. I cannot even start to comprehend a mindset that considers either of these choices to be in the best interests of the world or the respective countries or even the individuals themselves.

But some of the people who voted differently to the majority here are intelligent, reasonable people. I mean, clearly wrong, but still not stupid. And the rule of any form of democracy means that I should respect their choice and decision (I am not arguing that either country has a democracy, actually, because that is a whole other issue. Just that even in a proper democracy, this still applies).

So how do you deal with people who seem to vote in incomprehensible ways? How do we deal with this as spiritual people, when the message of tolerance and care fails to reach people? Or they hear it and still vote differently?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I don't see that we have to respect individual choices or decisions that are clearly stupid and demonstrably harmful to ourselves and others. That shouldn't stop us treating the people who make them with respect, just as we would alcoholics or other addicts, even though those things cause great harm.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

What I find harder is not so much how people vote, but the basis of their reasoning in deciding how to vote.

I can talk to someone who voted according to what they see as a reasonable assessment of evidence - we can discuss why one bit of evidence may be true, and how that's interpreted; we can agree on the intellectual process just differ on our evidence and the weight we put on that; we will probably have different endpoints in mind (someone who prioritises the best for their immediate family will almost always vote differently from someone who prioritises the best for the least privileged in society), and can discuss those rationally.

I find it impossible to have that same sort of rational discussion with someone who doesn't seem to care for basing their reasoning on verifiable reality, or who vote by "gut instinct" without any attempt to assess that. That's as true of people who put their cross in the same box as me as those who vote differently.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

The only thing I would dissent from there, is the idea that prioritising one's immediate family is in any way inimical to voting to benefit the least well-off in society, in any but the most crude sense. I think this could, with caveats, be true for the top, say, 1 percent of the wealthiest families, but not for the vast majority, who will benefit both socially and economically from the increased distribution of wealth (more people able to buy more things, thus greater employment opportunities) and better social cohesion, lower crime rate, and increased sense of a stake in society

It is precisely this failure to include the poorest and weakest in society, as epitomised by the insane austerity/welfare cuts culture, which has led to the disastrous electoral decisions of 2016, in both Britain and the US. It's hard to imagine anyone, of whatever personal or family wealth, who would not benefit from not having Brexit or Trump inflicted on them.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Jolly Jape said

quote:
It is precisely this failure to include the poorest and weakest in society, as epitomised by the insane austerity/welfare cuts culture, which has led to the disastrous electoral decisions of 2016, in both Britain and the US

and I just wanted to quote it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The only thing I would dissent from there, is the idea that prioritising one's immediate family is in any way inimical to voting to benefit the least well-off in society

It was, of course, just an example. But even then I think it's true that some people will come to an election and consider what policies (in their opinion) will be best for their immediate family, and others at the those best for the poorest in society - they may well, and probably if done diligently with due consideration of the evidence will, result in voting for the same candidate. The common end result doesn't preclude a different journey to get there.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I live in trump territory. Some friends hold it against me didn't vote the way they did, but after looking at the map there was no way anyone but trump would win the state, so might as well give some support to a third party. (In your view that might make me an enemy?)

Then i listen to the reasons people voted the way they did.

The trade pact that surrendered some sovernty to the multinationals was a big no.

The view that Hillary is a war lover was intriguing.

But mostly what I am hearing is that they distrust Hillary as doing more of the same, ignoring the little people and rewarding the in-group big boys.

Is that complaint right or wrong?

I don't know. I dont particularly like any politicians, and where I live there no point in fretting over who gets elected. (I focus on local races)

The local people who voted for Trump come across as decent people, who support immigration but not sneaking in. I've heard no comments suggesting white racism. (Not saying there aren't any, just that I have not heard any.)

The year is only days old. Some are expecting trump to resign after the nomination and hand to over to Hillary. Is that realistic?

The lengths to with people go to justify the rightness of their views is astonishing and says we have more divided than democrats were previously aware. Long way to go in creating a people with somewhat unified view.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It has long been a phenomenon in the US that some voters insist on voting against their own best interests. (Peruse the governance of Kansas, for a fine example.) There are theories about why this is so -- ideology triumphing over fact? cultural pressure? raw ignorance? No one knows why, but it certainly happens.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Ahem, I think I might be ale to shed some light for you. In fact, unless you want the reasons filtered through a left-leaning, crypto-communist lens with all the attendant supposition and accusations of neo-Nazi’ism, I suggest you do.

The answer of course is anger.

Why did we vote to Brexit? Because we were (and are) angered by Governments who appear to want to view us a cash-cows, to be milked dry of taxes for giving to countries who appear to want to spend on having easy lives (Greek pensions, for example), whilst foisting on us immigrants from Eastern Europe (and elsewhere), draining our public services of more of our money.

Why did many people vote for Trump?

Because of the anger they felt towards those so-called mainstream politicians who were willing to give away their jobs in order to curry favour with global corporations and the banking sector. Ask those coal-miners in Virginia why they voted for Trump! Because Clinton said “f*** you, your dirty and polluting and an embarrassment to America”. They said “Trump it is then!”.

Now some of you will argue why we SHOULDN’T be angry. Why we should be happy with the EU doing what they are doing, and that Clinton is right, (“but don’t be angry”). But that is missing the point. We ARE angry. More angry than you can possibly imagine. Those mainstream politicians are taking away our world and we do not like it.

If you try to defend then, you will be lumped with them and you too will be part of the movement that is taking away our world.
We are trying to take it back and we have a lot of power, in spite of the chipping away of that power over the last twenty years or so. We have said enough. Stop. This goes no further. In fact we are determined to roll back your agenda. And Brexit and a Trump Presidency are merely the opening salvoes in that war.

The fact is, lower-middle and middle- classes are now raging against everything that liberal politicians have done or wish to do because it is us that pay for it, we get nothing from it and it makes us worse of financially and politically.

Let me put it clearly, we absolutely hate the EU and mainstream politicians who conspire against us in order to fund their own little nests, and that is all we have been given for decades now.

You can argue that we shouldn’t feel that way (and knowing the Ship as I do, you will do), but the fact remains that we do. Before you try to tell us we are wrong to be angry (we know we are not of course), ask yourselves what policies will you introduce to talk us down from our anger? How would you change the EU or mainstream politicians like Clinton, like the morons Sanders and Corbyn, in order to win our votes to stay in the EU and to NOT vote for Trump.

What else is there for us?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
We are trying to take it back

Who are "we"?

What is the "it" you are trying to take back? Your "world"?

And once you have whatever "it" is back, how do you propose to look after "it" to ensure your children get all the benefits of "it" too?

[ 05. January 2017, 14:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
They distrust Hillary as doing more of the same, ignoring the little people and rewarding the in-group big boys.

Like Trump is doing with his cabinet choices?

quote:
Some are expecting trump to resign after the nomination and hand to over to Hillary. Is that realistic?

Don't they understand that it would be Pence, then Ryan? Hillary is completely out of the picture. I doubt she'll run again . . . although Elizabeth Warren bears watching.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
We are trying to take it back
Who are "we"?

What is the "it" you are trying to take back? Your "world"?

And once you have whatever "it" is back, how do you propose to look after "it" to ensure your children get all the benefits of "it" too?

"We" are those who voted for Brexit and those Americans who voted for Trump. Who did you think "we" are?

Fine to argue about leaving a world for OUR kids, but OUR kids are being impoverished whilst those of the Wall Street bankers and EU bureaucrats and Rumanians and those around the rest of the world are becoming richer and we do not like that one bit.

Find a way of making those people richer whilst leaving us alone to hold down jobs and having enough money in our pockets to enjoy a decent standard of living for our kids.

If you want to turn this into an environmental debate you go ahead but the same argument will apply. We want to have enough money and enough material possessions to have a good life and if we don't we will vote you out. Like we have demonstarted.

Fix the planet and make everything really nice and warm and fuzzy by all means, but don't piss us off whilst you are doing it or you will get a taste of that power we do still hold. Brexit and Trump are examples for you.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

People I know who voted for Brexit did so because clever politicians convinced them that the social problems caused by government policies were actually the fault of immigrants and the EU. This played on something we are all prone to, the belief that our problems are all someone else's fault and couldn't possibly be caused by something we did. (Electing rank incompetents as PM and chancellor, for example).

Some also fell for the egregious lie about spending £350M a week more on the NHS. I never heard anything resembling the sort of spittle-flecked rant we were just subjected to by Deano. I had a few reasonable, lively discussions but have stayed friends with the people concerned. Just.

The election of Trump, I think, is largely due to his campaign team realising that the electoral college could be gamed by focussing on a handful of swing states. Clinton's camp were lulled into a false sense of security by the votes they piled up in New York, California and their other fortresses. Similarites with Brexit are, IMO, superficial.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Deano:

quote:
Because of the anger they felt towards those so-called mainstream politicians who were willing to give away their jobs in order to curry favour with global corporations and the banking sector. Ask those coal-miners in Virginia why they voted for Trump! Because Clinton said “f*** you, your dirty and polluting and an embarrassment to America”. They said “Trump it is then!”.

Goodness, a Conservative coming out in favour of coal miners! Next up. Deano explains to us all how the Malvinas are in indissoluble part of the the territory of Greater Argentina.

[ 05. January 2017, 15:13: Message edited by: Callan ]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
People I know who voted for Brexit did so because clever politicians convinced them that the social problems caused by government policies were actually the fault of immigrants and the EU. This played on something we are all prone to, the belief that our problems are all someone else's fault and couldn't possibly be caused by something we did. (Electing rank incompetents as PM and chancellor, for example).

Some also fell for the egregious lie about spending £350M a week more on the NHS. I never heard anything resembling the sort of spittle-flecked rant we were just subjected to by Deano. I had a few reasonable, lively discussions but have stayed friends with the people concerned. Just.

The election of Trump, I think, is largely due to his campaign team realising that the electoral college could be gamed by focussing on a handful of swing states. Clinton's camp were lulled into a false sense of security by the votes they piled up in New York, California and their other fortresses. Similarites with Brexit are, IMO, superficial.

Oh okay. Is that what it was?

Alright then.

Well next time you'll do just fine then, over on the left won't you? Good luck.

I'd like to help of course but Theresa May has just called to ask if I can help her out next March when she trigger's Article 50.

But you'll be able to make it all better won't you, with your piercing insight and "Mock The Week" style wit.

It's what I said would happen, that the Ship would resort to it's basic position of Left if right and Right is bad. Thus the offering up of arguments that we shouldn't be angry, with no consideration of what made us angry enough to vote as we did, nor suggestions as to how to ameliorate our anger.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The answer of course is anger.

Of course it is.

The problems are of course what are people angry about, are they angry at the right things, and possibly most importantly in their anger have they just lashed out at something letting their emotions smother reality? And, I think there's a lot of evidence that the anger many people rightly feel has been directed at the wrong targets, and the reality of the world has been forgotten in an irrational urge to just smash something.

The rest of your post simply reflects that as you repeat untruths (and a few half truths), creating a fantasy that depicts Brexit as a solution to the anger people (in the UK) feel rather than the reality that it simply empowers those who we should be angry at to continue screwing us all.

quote:
Governments who appear to want to view us a cash-cows, to be milked dry of taxes for giving to countries who appear to want to spend on having easy lives (Greek pensions, for example)

Of course, the vast majority of us are not milked dry by taxes. We may prefer lower taxes, but for the Mr Angry of Tonbridge Wells taxes are not a great impact on the money he has to spend - it's the working poor who feel the pinch worst, mainly because of penny pinching Tories who cut in-work benefits and fail to legislate for a genuine living wage - all the while lining their own nest and squirreling their money away to lower tax jurisdictions.

And, even if taxes were a substantial burden on middle class families those taxes are not supporting Greek pensions (that's what taxes raised by the Greek government on their own people get spent on). The pittance the UK contributes to the EU regional development funds gets spent on development (the clue is in the name) - infrastructure etc that boosts the economy of poorer regions to the benefit of the whole EU. Those are the same funds that have boosted large parts of the UK economy in the past - is it not fair and just that having benefitted from these programmes the UK continues to support them to benefit others?

quote:
foisting on us immigrants from Eastern Europe (and elsewhere), draining our public services of more of our money.

Except, of course, immigrants do no such thing. Immigrants are a net gain to the UK economy, providing businesses with the staff they need to grow. Providing far more in taxes to national and local government than the costs of the services they use. If you want to be angry about immigration by all means do so, there is much to be angry about - the top of the list is the ludicrous, arbitrary cap on immigration this government wants to apply so that our economy stagnates and tax income to fund our public services diminishes.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
"We" are those who voted for Brexit and those Americans who voted for Trump. Who did you think "we" are?

I think there is very little evidence that this "we" is a single-minded constituency. There is little to unite them but for their rejection of the status quo.

Unfortunately, none of them seem to have a clear road map to the ambitions you state.

quote:
don't piss us off whilst you are doing it or you will get a taste of that power we do still hold. Brexit and Trump are examples for you.

It's a bit too early to tell for Trump, but he seems intent on surrounding himself with cronies from the world of bosses. Are they "you" or "us"?

Similarly, I think Brexit is above all an example of what I've just outlined above.

I'm not sure where its champions are except headed for lucrative chat show and lecture fees on the backs of those that voted for it. How this improves your lot is beyond me. They are certainly not spearheading the policy changes Brexit entails. Are they "you" or "us"?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Deano:

quote:
Because of the anger they felt towards those so-called mainstream politicians who were willing to give away their jobs in order to curry favour with global corporations and the banking sector. Ask those coal-miners in Virginia why they voted for Trump! Because Clinton said “f*** you, your dirty and polluting and an embarrassment to America”. They said “Trump it is then!”.
Goodness, a Conservative coming out in favour of coal miners! Next up. Deano explains to us all how the Malvinas are in indissoluble part of the the territory of Greater Argentina.

Also, the great value of Wikileaks and Putin for the economic prosperity of the middle class. It must be true, I saw it in a tweet.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The thing about the anger I get - in a sense. The problem is that the anger is misplaced. "We are fed up with politicians looking after themselves and their own" I can get, but "so I will vote for Trump" I don't get (because I think it was obvious what he was going to do).

I get that some people are angry at the EU and some of the decisions made there. So am I, which is why I wanted to stay in and to commit to it so as to make a difference, rather than, as we have been doing, staying in but irritating all of the other members. Leaving the EU will not sort these problems out. In fact, most of the problems that we experience locally will just be worse.

Which I think goes back to Alans comment - it isn't that people vote differently that I have a problem with. In fact, it isn't even that people will vote with their guts, to an extent. It is that people will vote with their guts having ignored all of the evidence.

TBH it is rather like me supporting competitors in reality shows because they are pretty. Actually I don't, but the quirky, strange ones always get my support. This is not a good basis for picking a winner (as I have amply demonstrated through the years), but it isn't important in these cases. My qualification are the ones I enjoy watching, not the best bakers/cookers/sewers/artists/singers/whatever. (I have written a blog around this if anyone is interested, which is not why I started this thread.)

The thing is, in the shows I watch, all of the competitors are good (I don't watch the abusive ones). In politics - real elections - more discernment is needed, because all of the candidates are not good, and it is important to pick the best one based on all of the available evidence. Because they don't just get a glitterball trophy, they impact the lives of many people. It really doesn't matter if Ed balls wins the dancing, but it does matter if his party wins an election.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

It's what I said would happen, that the Ship would resort to it's basic position of Left if right and Right is bad. Thus the offering up of arguments that we shouldn't be angry, with no consideration of what made us angry enough to vote as we did, nor suggestions as to how to ameliorate our anger.

Angry largely over a set of policies pursued by exactly the sort of Right wing politician you and your ilk have long supported and who are now in power.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

If Deano's missive is typical of Brexit arguments, then we are stuffed. So many strawmen, so many unsubstantiated claims, so many non sequiturs. Bloody hell, is this Middle England, warts and all? We are finished.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

Strange how the people who are angriest about Brexit are the ones who won. The longer it goes on, the stranger it gets.

Glad you think I'm witty, Deano. Made my day.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

It's what I said would happen, that the Ship would resort to it's basic position of Left if right and Right is bad. Thus the offering up of arguments that we shouldn't be angry, with no consideration of what made us angry enough to vote as we did, nor suggestions as to how to ameliorate our anger.
Angry largely over a set of policies pursued by exactly the sort of Right wing politician you and your ilk have long supported and who are now in power.

They aren't in any kind of power. Their pals in Wall Street, the City and a small number of boardrooms are in power and have been for decades. No wonder people are fed up with politics and politicians.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Strange how the people who are angriest about Brexit are the ones who won. The longer it goes on, the stranger it gets.

Glad you think I'm witty, Deano. Made my day.

Yes, the comments columns online are full of Brexiteers raging, well, what about? As you say, they won, but they still bluster and rant, as if they lost.

They've got a nice right wing government - what the fuck else do they want?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The thing about the anger I get - in a sense. The problem is that the anger is misplaced. "We are fed up with politicians looking after themselves and their own" I can get, but "so I will vote for Trump" I don't get (because I think it was obvious what he was going to do).

What alternative was there, though? Even if there was a 90% chance of him being more of the same, that's still better than the 100% chance offered by the other candidate.

quote:
Leaving the EU will not sort these problems out.

No. But (for better or worse) it will mean they're not our problems any more.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Over the last four years, I transitioned from libertarian-leaning Conservative to Democratic Socialist. So I think I can maybe tell you a thing or two about what works and what doesn't.

Anger, yelling, cursing, etc. doesn't work. I understand that this is easy for me to say as a white dude. This election didn't in any way make me feel like my rights were going to be taken away. Other people? Not so much. So I'm not telling you that you can't be mad, and that you shouldn't blow off steam in Hell or organize protests. But don't expect to change anyone that way.

What changed me was thinking outside of my own experience, and learning what other people go through. And the way that starts is through personal experience.

We decided a few years ago to adopt rather than have our own kids, so to prevent any accidental pregnancy, I got a vasectomy. This lead me to learn quite a bit more about the difference between the cost and complications of my health and birth control options vs. my wife's. Suddenly, I realized why women get really defensive when birth control is on the table, and how the system is set up so that women pay much more than men for health care. And I realized how insane it sounds for men to refuse to get a quick, inexpensive, and pretty non-invasive procedure done, while they expect their wives to do much more expensive and dangerous things to prevent unwanted births.

So I started seeking out other ways to learn about how maybe my experience of the world wasn't universal. I read some books by people who were not white dudes, including the Autobiography of Malcolm X. And I started considering how concerns that I had dismissed in the past might be totally valid.

Having a daughter put some things into perspective as well. I know that some feminists make fun of guys who only get it when they have a daughter, but realistically, that's what it sometimes takes to get us out of our comfortable existence.

So I would say that the only way that people change and start looking outside of their narrow concerns and interests is to have an experience that forces them out of their box.

So how do I deal with people who vote differently than me? It helps that I used to vote that way. I try to think about the good things that they do on a day to day basis. I always keep in mind that one vote does not change an election. And I do what I can to gently try to get them to look at how others might experience things differently than they do.

If I could impart one bit of advice to other white dudes, it would be that you rarely get in trouble for talking less and listening more.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Ignoring the rest of the pseudo-intellectual sneering going on, which is par for the course for some on the left, I think Alan has it nearly right.

Half-truth's and lies though? Not so much. The thread asked the question and I answered based on my own feeling and those of others amongst my peers. It may be more layered and subtle but my answer is how it seems to me. Others may have different views, but the same arguments about whether they are right are moot. All I know is the people I know, both British and some of my friends in the US, voted the way they did because of the reasons I outlined.

Now, Alan goes on to say, in effect, the EU and immigration and stuff are all really good things. We saw them differently. Perhaps it was wrong communication or incipient racism amongst British working and middle classes or whatever. The fact remains that something triggered off our desire to see an end to the way things were done. We reached a watershed moment.

Greek pensions may well be, in reality, a very minor point Alan, but it was no just that, as I"m sure you will understand. That was one of many things that dripped out of the EU on a constant basis. For twenty or thirty years, since we moved from the EEC to the EU there has been a movement in Britain against the EU. We did not need "them" telling "us" what to do. The more they did the more we resented it.

It's probably a pride thing. We remembered (just in some cases) when Britain was Great, and we want it back. We recognised that we would never get in that position again from within the EU, and our anger a bitterness grew with every little bit of chipping away at our country's rights as a sovereign nation, so we said "out".

Is there also some buried racism amongst those white, working and middle classes in Britain? Yes, possibly, but I don't think it will go away. We bury it and keep it in chefor the most part, but I suspect it's there, just waiting for us to be given the chance to use it safely. If there were another referendum in the summer to reduce the immigration cap to zero Alan, how do you think that result would go?

Perhaps they are one and they same thing and go back to pride in what Britain once was and that we don't need help from anyone to get back to it, not the EU or immigrants. In fact, in our anger, we say a pox on both of them; we need neither to be a strong country, and very possibly both have made us weaker.

So, poor politicians, bad communication, a deep-seated and resentful anger, and latent racism amongst the most powerful voting blocs all led up to Brexit. Perhaps they also explain Trump. Who knows.

But I do know that we will be leaving the EU and there it stands regardless.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yeah, I remember when Britain was Great. My parents lived in a slum with no bathroom, and damp running down the wall, and at the end of the week, they didn't have two pennies to rub together. In fact, it was bloody Great.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I understand the anger which may have generated votes for Brexit and Trump. I, too, feel angry about things in the European Union which shouldn't be happening. I also feel angry against the government in Westminster and our local Assembly.

But just because I know there are some processes and people I don't trust, or have reason to doubt, doesn't mean I'm willing to begin trusting a whole other set of politicians - not very articulate or impressive ones at that - without hearing very specifically what they are going to do, and how they're going to do it.

I'm astonished at the high level of blind trust given to the pro-Brexit politicos by the voting public. It's like saying, I distrust politics and politicians so much I'm going to give as much power as I can to this other bunch of politicians, to process some other kind of politics for me to live by. The only difference being - to date - no-one knows what the hell's going on now.

Similarly, how is it possible to object to the undoubted imperfections of Clinton and not see the objections to Trump as President?

If you objected to Clinton because she's pro-abortion, potentially a criminal, defensive of her husband's sexual behaviour, supposedly a war-monger; why weren't you even more appalled by Trump's mocking a disabled man, attacking of the parents of a dead soldier, admitted pussy-grabbing sexual-assualts of women, his admitted 'truth hyperbole' use of lies to gain his objects, dodgy business techniques, out of court settlement deals; demonstrably false claims throughout his hustings and debate appearances; his appointments of friends, family and business colleagues (including campaign donors) to influential positions; his brown-nosing of Putin; his attempts at 'suggesting' Farage should be appointed Ambassador; his allergy to press conferences and accountability, and his twitchy, thin-skinned tantrums on Twitter.

How is a guy - to whom no-one has probably ever seriously said 'no' to - going to suddenly acquire the political nous, compassion, wisdom, humanity, knowledge and ability to effectively rule the free world?

We're called to pray for those in authority. That's what I'll do. Even though I believe that in these cases (as in others to varying degrees) these folks are dangerously in authority over us, I'll still pray that God's will be done. But I don't understand how anyone could've voted for either Brexit or Trump, and maintained a rational argument for doing so.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

To return to the OP, and how we deal with people who've voted in ways incomprehensible to us, I think the answer is: as we've always dealt with them, as friends, colleagues and fellow-citizens. This can be quite hard when all that seems to be coming back the other way is accusations of being unpatriotic "enemies of the people", etc. I'm no spiritual giant, but there needs to be some forgiveness on both sides.

Those of us who voted the other way need to say: OK, you won. A decision has been made. Now make it work; impress us with the brilliant rebirth of this once-great nation, even though many of us thought it was doing fine already, thanks.

A word of warning though: you are now the government. You are in charge. We're the insurgents now.

And any talk of returning the glory days of Empire is for the birds. The Americans, Russians and Chinese will have plenty to say about that.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
If there were another referendum in the summer to reduce the immigration cap to zero Alan, how do you think that result would go?

I'd hope the country would have had it's fill of stupidity and vote conclusively against. If stupidity reigns again I will try my best to get a job in a more sensible nation (anywhere in the EU would do) and move out - at least it will give someone else the chance to come into the UK. At the end of June I did actually look at what was available in Ireland, but fortunately I live in a nation with enough common sense to vote to remain in the EU which was enough to give me hope that we're not as stupid as the referendum result suggested.

quote:
But I do know that we will be leaving the EU and there it stands regardless.

It does look like that is going to happen. Though perhaps Scotland can stay in if Westmonster permits us to have another referendum in independence. But, it's still not too late to admit that Brexit is unworkable and see whether we can mend bridges with our fellow Europeans. If the UK continues down the road we're blindly stumbling along I predict strong pressure for a rejoin the EU referendum around 2030.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I hope the In/Out referendum isn't re-run: but if it is then prepare for an even larger Out vote. And if you wonder why this might be it is the attitude of the Remain camp since the referendum in June 2017, which has been to label Out voters as dim, stupid and racist - in fact the very condescending attitudes that prompted many to vote Out in the first place. What it may achieve a second time around is an even larger vote for Out.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Perhaps they are one and they same thing and go back to pride in what Britain once was and that we don't need help from anyone to get back to it, not the EU or immigrants.

It is hard to respond to this without understanding what you mean by 'what Britain once was'. However, the problem is that the historical contingencies that allowed Britain to be come 'what it once was' are generally no longer present.

The changes that you rail against have been largely wrought by the governments of the Right - who have acted in the interests of their own class and will continue to do so.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though perhaps Scotland can stay in if Westmonster permits us to have another referendum in independence.

Please God save us from anymore caucuses with dreams of a better way for some small defined sample of the people around them - will you be advocating a 2 stage referendum? Ie round one based on what you'd like to negotiate (presumably based on the last White Paper from the Scottish Executive), and then round 2 on the final deal once negotiated - or is that just sauce for the Brexit goose?

And "Westmonster" is right up there with "EUSSR" - Brexiteers and Scexiteers are sisters under the skin.... (with apologies to Mr Kipling).

[ 05. January 2017, 16:47: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

sorry if that is a little intemperate in tone, but my point stands - I can cope with whatever side of the line people came down on last year (with regards to Brexit anyway, Trump I'm still slightly boggling at), but I'm losing the will to live with the thought of anymore line drawing for people to take sides on!

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The USA and UK are the focus of this aren't they, or are there other countries with this anger and recent voting thing? Maybe France. Not Germany. Not Canada. Possibly Australia.

Both the UK and USA seem to me to be wanting to fulfil some sort of pretentious illusions of exceptional destinies which have been passed between these English-speaking nations. Some accomplishments have been pretty praiseworthy, though progressively more pitiful. Neither are down nor out, but are moving in that direction. I don't think either will successfully reinvent themselves and revive with the cruel directions they are choosing. I think Scotland and California would be well to get out of their unions, both of which seem remote in possibility, though social media loves them. Or could they articulate conditions for staying in?

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

I get that some people are angry at the EU and some of the decisions made there. So am I, which is why I wanted to stay in and to commit to it so as to make a difference, rather than, as we have been doing, staying in but irritating all of the other members.

I'm not part of either issue, and I make no comment on the merits of either side. (I would note in passing, however, that the sense of violated entitlement in both losing sides is a little unsettling.)

But what you've said in what I quoted, to many on the other sides, sounds an awful lot like what ?Oscar Wilde? said about second marriage -- the triumph of hope over experience.

John

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

X-posted with John Holding - reply to one up...

Hmmm, I'm not convinced - I think there's more about than just the US, UK and France - I suspect the German and Dutch elections are going to be interesting this year. I don't think Mr Wilders is going to win in Holland, but I do think his party, and the AfD in Germany, are going to do well.

Austria's just come within an inch (the first time round at least) of electing a far right president - even though it didn't happen that does mean a lot of voters had to countenance/vote for him; Italy's Five Star movement seemed to be on the populous left, but is now tearing itself apart after Grillo called for the repatriation of migrants; Syriza and Podemos are nothing if not populist in Greece and Spain. Then there's populist Hindu nationalism on the rise in India, similar trajectories elsewhere....

Not confined to the anglo-sphere by any means.

[ 05. January 2017, 17:00: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
We remembered (just in some cases) when Britain was Great, and we want it back.

Thanks for ignoring my earlier questions [Disappointed]

It is well known that nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

Even if Britain was once Great (whatever that means), and even if there were to be merit in wanting it back, aspiring to such things is not the same thing as devising a roadmap to get there.

One might not like the road down which a country appears to be travelling, but driving off a cliff rather than stay on it does not bode well for putting things back to how they were before.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Great Britain was never a description of economic or political standing, as some wish it to be (or to have been): it was a geographical description. It will still be Great Britain when it is as poor as a church mouse.

The more relevant title is "United Kingdom" but that looks downright misleading nowadays.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
How would you change the EU or mainstream politicians like Clinton, like the morons Sanders and Corbyn, in order to win our votes to stay in the EU and to NOT vote for Trump.

What else is there for us?

Oh let's see.
What were the policies in place when Britain was great?
Well, there was Keynesian economics, there were strong unions keeping wages up, there was a properly funded socialised NHS, there were restraints upon the powers of the stockmarkets, banks and the financial sector, and there was at least moderate gestures in the direction of social democracy keeping society from getting too unequal or even making it more equal.

So there are people who're suggesting actually giving another try to the economic and social policies that were in force when Britain was great as you put it. But you're dismissing them as morons.
So, no, there's not really a lot that the left can offer you.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I thought they were harking back a bit further than that. When Britain (well, some British people) were rich from importing raw materials to feed the factories of Britain, exporting finished products around the world. A greatness built on exploiting the natural resources and people of the Empire, on dark satanic mills and workhouses exploiting the poor of the UK, the navy that could send gunboats up any river we wanted to force nations to accept our products (and opium made people very rich even then). I can see how that vision of Britain the great trading nation is compatible with the dreams of UKIP and Tories, unhindered by pesky details of EU legislation or human rights.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can see how that vision of Britain the great trading nation is compatible with the dreams of UKIP and Tories, unhindered by pesky details of EU legislation or human rights.

The problem is that the historical contingencies that made that possible no longer exist, and that particular vision will not serve the majority of the people who voted UKIP/Tory.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I thought they were harking back a bit further than that.

He was specifically talking about rising living standards for people like himself.
Living standards for people other than the 1% rose steadily after the Second World War with Attlee's government and then plateaued in the early 80s under Thatcher.(*) (The 1% have just kept rising.)

(*) Obviously as people who are on career ladders generally rise up them, people who haven't fallen off will generally be better off now than they individually were ten years ago. But they aren't on average better off than their counterparts were ten years ago.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

So what is the answer?

To remain in the EU and "manage decline" gracefully like the Wilson/Heath/Callaghan era?

Or to "rage against the dying of the light" and throw off what seems to be holding us back.

We may lose everything outside the EU or we may win big. Either way we will not be a small cog. Nothing or all.

And why not aspire to a truly Great Britain again. Why not. What else do we want our country to be? Alan would have it broken to pieces, others reduced to a bail-out provider for a greater EU.

Me? Not so much. Everything on red please, all or nothing and if it ends up as nothing so be it. At least that's better than life in a National Nursing Home for past it countries, waiting for the IMF and World Bank to ease our passage into the netherworld of being a federal state within the United States of Europe.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Great Britain was never a description of economic or political standing, as some wish it to be (or to have been): it was a geographical description. It will still be Great Britain when it is as poor as a church mouse.

The irony also being that when anyone embarks on a romantic journey backwards to locate the magical time when Britain was Great, they are also going on a sliding scale downwards in terms of the deprivations endured by the majority. Only a relative few enjoyed the spoils of Britain's apparent Greatness from the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1 to that of Queen Elizabeth 11 some 350 yrs later.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Returning to the OP, I think we need to acknowledge a tension between two aims:

a.) How can I understand why people act in irrational ways?
b.) How can I persuade them to act otherwise?

I think these aims are in tension because in order to answer (a), I think you do need to entertain the possibility that they and not you may be right.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

To remain in the EU and "manage decline" gracefully like the Wilson/Heath/Callaghan era?
[...]

At least that's better than life in a National Nursing Home for past it countries, waiting for the IMF and World Bank to ease our passage into the netherworld of being a federal state within the United States of Europe.

Speaking as one who has been trying to defend the Leave position on the main Brexit thread, I'm not sure that the above depressing picture of a dying Britain is entirely compatible with the Brexiteer assertion that Britain, as the fifth largest economy in the world, is absolutely hot potatoes and everyone else will be queuing up to make trade deals with us.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The thing about the anger I get - in a sense. The problem is that the anger is misplaced. "We are fed up with politicians looking after themselves and their own" I can get, but "so I will vote for Trump" I don't get (because I think it was obvious what he was going to do).
What alternative was there, though? Even if there was a 90% chance of him being more of the same, that's still better than the 100% chance offered by the other candidate.

I could understand that kind of reasoning if policy positions were all that mattered. The problem is that it is too likely that Trump will go well beyond implementing policies and lead the country into dangerous situations (and possibly war) based on petty and personal vindictiveness. He has shown himself to be an amoral narcissist with no impulse control and the emotional maturity of a six year old. Those who voted for him should not have been willing to put someone like that in charge of our military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not sure that the above depressing picture of a dying Britain is entirely compatible with the Brexiteer assertion that Britain, as the fifth largest economy in the world, is absolutely hot potatoes and everyone else will be queuing up to make trade deals with us.

It's Schrödinger again. The UK is both an economic has-been held back from the greatness we deserve by the EU, and an economic superpower supported by EU investment and market access.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So what is the answer?

The answer is more than just word salad.

The answer is to point to some actual policy proposals, with numbers that add up, designed to achieve the outcomes you favour, and an explanation as to why these outcomes are better.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not sure that the above depressing picture of a dying Britain is entirely compatible with the Brexiteer assertion that Britain, as the fifth largest economy in the world, is absolutely hot potatoes and everyone else will be queuing up to make trade deals with us.
It's Schrödinger again. The UK is both an economic has-been held back from the greatness we deserve by the EU, and an economic superpower supported by EU investment and market access.

I've noticed this shift among Brexiters of my acquaintance. Before the vote, Britain was Great and didn't need the EU or pesky immigrants. Unfurl the union flags, let them float! We are the envy of less happier lands! Now we're a basket-case and the EU is doing its best to finish us off. Calling people on it tends to make them cross, but making Brexiters cross is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Schroeinger's Cat:

quote:
I cannot even start to comprehend a mindset that . . . .

So here is the problem. Until you can at least begin to understand, you'll find it harder to relate to those who think differently to you.

Now this has limits, as I know since I was brought up as a Jehovah's witness (see, I even still get their name right: capital J small w - these things can be important). And I know their theology in depth, and am not able to accord it the status of being an intellectually permissible option. So all I can do with them is allow them their space in a free society.

With Brexit after initially being rather pissed off with the result (though not as much as many) I decided to see if there were any good things - at all - to be said for it, and concluded that there were, so whilst still of the view that it was a mistake, I do include it as an intellectually permissible option.

I like to go back to a remark by Bertrand Russel in his excellent popular history of Western philosophy, where he had a digression on how he came to grips with Augustine, whose ideas he thought stupid and obnoxious. And he came to the conclusion that whenever he was totally unable to have any sympathy with a viewpoint supported by many who on all other objective grounds were intelligent and honest and expert, he concluded that this was a weakness in him. So he started to comprehend the mindset of Augustine. He never got to agree with him, but did get to see that there was much to admire.

So if you admit that there are intelligent, honest and expert people who are pro-Brexit, are you prepared to engage in dialogue with them? On the Brexit thread I recommended David Owen's book, since in may view he fulfils the criteria, as does (as a harsh critic of EU market fundamentalist neo-liberalism but emphatically no brexiteer) Joseph Stiglitz.

A relevant question is: Do you want to understand? There are many who believe a tendency to sit on fences can be a pain in the arse, and I can even begin to comprehend this attitude.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

There is a story of Field Marshall Montgomery that when he was fighting Rommel in North Africa he kept a picture of him above his desk and tried to understand what he was likely to do. He certainly later called a dog Rommel.

In other words, if you want to win a debate you must first understand what your opponent is thinking.

Jengie

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Speaking as one who has been trying to defend the Leave position on the main Brexit thread, I'm not sure that the above depressing picture of a dying Britain is entirely compatible with the Brexiteer assertion that Britain, as the fifth largest economy in the world, is absolutely hot potatoes and everyone else will be queuing up to make trade deals with us.

If someone is slowly bleeding to death then healing the wound will (eventually) restore them to their previous strength.

I don't see any inherent contradiction in the idea that Britain is a strong country that is being slowly but surely weakened by EU membership, and that will be able to recover its strength once it is no longer an EU member.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I don't see any inherent contradiction in the idea that Britain is a strong country that is being slowly but surely weakened by EU membership, and that will be able to recover its strength once it is no longer an EU member.

Which is all fine - except that we'd be better off if we were properly part of Europe, not faffing around on the fringes.

European laws improve things - especially for the workforce.

My son is a nurse in Germany, my friend's daughter is a nurse in England. The difference in working conditions and everything else is very noticeable. It's the same in manufacturing, cleanliness of streets, you name it.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Which is all fine - except that we'd be better off if we were properly part of Europe, not faffing around on the fringes.

Regardless of the truth status of that claim, I'm talking about the country and you're talking about people. Not the same thing.

I imagine that quite a lot of people who voted for Brexit would refuse an offer of a million pounds (or euros) if it came with the condition that they had to surrender their British nationality and become French. Hard as it may be for some people on this thread to understand, there are those who see their national identity as more important than personal prosperity.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So how do you deal with people who seem to vote in incomprehensible ways?

Accept that they comprehended their vote.

There is a big difference between thinking someone's reasons for a vote were poor, or flawed, or downright false, and thinking that there simply wasn't a reason because your own reasoning process couldn't have brought you to that same vote.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I imagine that quite a lot of people who voted for Brexit would refuse an offer of a million pounds (or euros) if it came with the condition that they had to surrender their British nationality and become French. Hard as it may be for some people on this thread to understand, there are those who see their national identity as more important than personal prosperity.

This is analogous to the discussion of "would you sleep with her?" "No!" "A million dollars?" "Well..." "How about ten bucks?" "What do you take me for?" "We've already established that, we're just haggling over the price now."

If you beggar people, they won't give a monkeys about Britishness. Likewise, all those ultrarich non-doms who seem more than happy to trade their residency for a passel of cash. Everyone has their price.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Which is all fine - except that we'd be better off if we were properly part of Europe, not faffing around on the fringes.
Regardless of the truth status of that claim, I'm talking about the country and you're talking about people. Not the same thing.

Or you are talking of Britain as an institution while Boogies is talking of Britain as a people.

Jengie

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not sure that the above depressing picture of a dying Britain is entirely compatible with the Brexiteer assertion that Britain, as the fifth largest economy in the world, is absolutely hot potatoes and everyone else will be queuing up to make trade deals with us.
It's Schrödinger again. The UK is both an economic has-been held back from the greatness we deserve by the EU, and an economic superpower supported by EU investment and market access.
I've noticed this shift among Brexiters of my acquaintance. Before the vote, Britain was Great and didn't need the EU or pesky immigrants. Unfurl the union flags, let them float! We are the envy of less happier lands! Now we're a basket-case and the EU is doing its best to finish us off. Calling people on it tends to make them cross, but making Brexiters cross is like shooting fish in a barrel.

It strikes me that we're dealing with various fantasies about Britain. This is partly why its Greatness is difficult to define. After all, in the Victorian age, Britain was presumably Great, in terms of its industry, its commercial dealings with other countries, its military prowess, colonial possessions, and so on. Is this what the Greaters want to go back to?

Generally, one would call this stuff a right-wing fantasy, but clearly it has struck a chord among different groups. I suppose they will get disappointed in a Tory government, but maybe in all governments, as fantasies don't mesh very well with actual reality. And people get angry when their fantasies don't work.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm talking about the country and you're talking about people. Not the same thing.

But, what is a country if not the collective people who live there? If you dug up a spade-full of soil from Middle England it's not going to know it's 'English soil' rather than 'European soil', the land doesn't care. Though, if you ask a geologist then the answer would be clear - Britain is part of the European continental shelf.

quote:

I imagine that quite a lot of people who voted for Brexit would refuse an offer of a million pounds (or euros) if it came with the condition that they had to surrender their British nationality and become French.

Except, that isn't something that was ever going to happen. The closest would be that the long term aim of the European Union is greater political union, which would at some point in the future probably mean that we would increasingly see ourselves as "European" and our British identity would become closer to a regional rather than national identity (akin to being a Brummie, Scouser or Cockney). But, I'm not expecting anything like that in my lifetime (much as I would welcome it).

quote:
Hard as it may be for some people on this thread to understand, there are those who see their national identity as more important than personal prosperity.

If the people living in a country are prosperous, does that not also mean the country is prosperous? Are not the two intimately related? And, just to be clear, I consider prosperity to be more than just financial - it's about quality of life, so includes things like job satisfaction and welfare. But, I'm not seeing the fat cats that run the Tory party as being all that considered about anything more than their personal prosperity. If Brexit gives them a chance to get rich then they'll happily let the rest of the country got to pot (or, so their actions suggest).

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you beggar people, they won't give a monkeys about Britishness. Likewise, all those ultrarich non-doms who seem more than happy to trade their residency for a passel of cash. Everyone has their price.

I disagree, for two principal reasons.

1 - I've spoken to homeless people who were amazingly proud to be British.

2 - At no point did I say everyone felt the way I indicated, only that many do. Pointing out that many don't isn't a refutation of that claim.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

The people who have done the best out of being British are often the first people in the queue to ditch their responsibilities to it. I'm remembering back to past conversations where you and me talked about tax.

And I expect you weren't offering a million quid to those homeless people.

The point stands.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what is a country if not the collective people who live there?

Britain isn't just whichever 65,000,000 individuals happen to live on this island at the moment, it's also the history, the culture, the mythology. It's the land that beat Napoleon, that ruled the waves, that stood alone against the might of the Nazis until the yanks and russkies got round to helping out. It's cricket on the lawn, dry stone walls and village pubs. It's the industrial revolution, the monarchy, the chimes of Big Ben. It's an idea, or better yet an ideal.

quote:

quote:
I imagine that quite a lot of people who voted for Brexit would refuse an offer of a million pounds (or euros) if it came with the condition that they had to surrender their British nationality and become French.
Except, that isn't something that was ever going to happen.

Of course it isn't. I was merely illustrating that for some people national identity is more important than personal prosperity.

quote:

quote:
Hard as it may be for some people on this thread to understand, there are those who see their national identity as more important than personal prosperity.
If the people living in a country are prosperous, does that not also mean the country is prosperous? Are not the two intimately related?

You're missing the point, which is that for some people it's not about prosperity at all, it's about national identity.

[code]

[ 06. January 2017, 12:15: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Why not go for 1st?

Because reasons.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
we are probably the worlds 5th strongest economy with good trading power, however who wants to settle for 5th?

8th, and falling. By why settle for that? We could be the very worst.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's fantasy time.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
we are probably the worlds 5th strongest economy with good trading power, however who wants to settle for 5th?
8th, and falling. By why settle for that? We could be the very worst.

Well, after 5 years of Brexit, we might be in double figures, i.e. 10th or lower. Hey, this gambling malarkey is fun, eh?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
It's disruptive, as in a disruptive technology

What, like Steorn's Orbo?

Disruptive technology is not disruptive unless it has all of these things. If it doesn't have them, it's just a disaster for those concerned.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Well, yes, fantasies are often disruptive. I could regale you with many stories about individuals who suffered from ongoing fantasies which wrecked their lives. I would think that nation states might also be prone to this, but I guess we are in for some empirical testing!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Which is all fine - except that we'd be better off if we were properly part of Europe, not faffing around on the fringes.
Regardless of the truth status of that claim, I'm talking about the country and you're talking about people. Not the same thing.

I imagine that quite a lot of people who voted for Brexit would refuse an offer of a million pounds (or euros) if it came with the condition that they had to surrender their British nationality and become French. Hard as it may be for some people on this thread to understand, there are those who see their national identity as more important than personal prosperity.

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.

There is a big difference between money and quality of life. While my son was learning the language he worked in many low status jobs - chambermaid, waiter, career etc. He was treated so well. Over here we just don't have that mentality towards immigrants, sadly.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

'Carer' not 'career' [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

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.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

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?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

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.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, in the words of Vladimir Ilyich, who whom?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

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.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Just do us all a favour, and make it a very long while.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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 ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

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 ...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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 ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

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.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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'.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

...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.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

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?

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

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.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

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.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

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.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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).

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

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.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

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.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

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?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

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.)

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

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]

)

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 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Wow, hard drive in a meat sack. That image will take a while to go away.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

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.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

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 ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

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.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

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

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0