|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are we living in a post-factual society?
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You don't get it.
The Leave case did not stand or fall on the validity or otherwise of the economic arguments.
A Leaver could clearly recognise the falsity of the 350m. claim, equally recognise the validity of the economic arguments for Remaining, but still decide that they preferred Britain to be independent of the EU.
In other words, it was not a false dichotomy case of an expert-supported "right" decision (Remain) versus a charlatan-supported "wrong" decision (Leave).
In the end, individuals decided not only what to vote, but what they considered to be the most important and relevant criteria on which to base their vote, some of which might not have been susceptible of truth/untruth analysis - de gustibus non est disputandum.
Of course, the ad hominem solution is to claim that all those uppity Leavers were motivated solely by racism and xenophobia, probably the biggest counterfactual to come out of the whole episode.
Correct me if I'm wrong but no one on this thread has suggested Leavers were motivated by racism and xenophobia. I certainly haven't.
I know people who, as you say, did not buy the Leave arguments on the economy or whatever and voted leave, but are you seriously trying to tell me that the Leave campaign has no effect whatsoever?
It is my contention that virtually everything the Leave campaign claimed was simply not true. The £350m is just the easiest to demolish but I can happily take down the rest as well. Similarly watch how the regaining of 'British sovereignty' will prove to be strangely illusive in a way predicted by anyone who knows anything about British constitutional law. We always were a sovereign nation.
The point is not that there are not arguments for leaving, it's that the campaign consisted of non-facts. And that, for some as least, it was the non-facts that were persuasive.
This is a few years old now but makes the point very well about what people believe vs the facts.
You are right that some voted despite the campaign(s). That is not the point, the point is that some (a majority in my view, though that part I can't demonstrate) were persuaded by propaganda and not facts.
This is another example of the phenomenon.
I am not saying that anyone who voted leave is stupid.
I am not saying that anyone who voted leave is racist.
I am saying that it seems to me, in the public sphere the validity of any argument seems to judged on volume and not on how well supported it is by facts.
In the case of many things, knowing the truth can involve complex evidence and earnest, smart people may get it wrong. In the case of some things it is clear that bare faced lies were used.
Once again, are you telling me that the campaign had no effect whatsoever?
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
According to the Lord Ashcroft polls nearly 24% of the voters said they made up their mind in the last week and one in ten made up their mind on the day or day before they voted. It would be very difficult to argue that the decision made by those 24% was not affected by the campaign.
Also according to those polls,
quote:
One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”
it comes behind:
quote:
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”
.
but the next main reason for voting leave was chosen by 13% of those voting.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In the end, individuals decided not only what to vote, but what they considered to be the most important
No one is arguing this.
quote:
and relevant criteria
How can something be relevant criteria when it is demonstrably wrong?
quote:
on which to base their vote, some of which might not have been susceptible of truth/untruth analysis - de gustibus non est disputandum.
Nothing in the Leave Campaign was true. It was full of lies, misrepresentation and supposition.
quote:
Of course, the ad hominem solution is to claim that all those uppity Leavers were motivated solely by racism and xenophobia, probably the biggest counterfactual to come out of the whole episode.
Again, NONE here have claimed all leavers were racist or xenophobic or that anyone was solely motivated by such. It remains that those were significant factors, however.
It would still have been awful if people had got their information correct and still voted Leave,* but it would be more understandable. Many, if not most, of those who voted Leave have created real disadvantage to themselves by trying to protect themselves from imaginary harm.
*Morally, probably worse to do so
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
lB--
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think one's views should always be open to examination. Does that qualify?
Hmmm...to me, that's not the same as (actively/perpetually?) seeking to challenge your worldview.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
on which to base their vote, some of which might not have been susceptible of truth/untruth analysis - de gustibus non est disputandum.....Nothing in the Leave Campaign was true.
[QB][QUOTE]
Non sequitur.
Even if it were granted that "nothing" in the Leave campaign was true in economic and similar areas, Leavers could still agree with that, but decide to vote leave anyway for subjective reasons of national identity or whatever.
You might not feel that sentiment yourself, but it is meaningless to say that it is "wrong".
[QUOTE][QB]
It would still have been awful if people had got their information correct and still voted Leave [QB][QUOTE]
Why?
[QUOTE][QB] Many, if not most, of those who voted Leave have created real disadvantage to themselves by trying to protect themselves from imaginary harm.
Once again, this comes back to the arrogant and manipulative concept of "false consciousness".
Who are you, or anyone else, to tell other people that their economic interests take pred=cedence over their personal feelings of national identity, however inconceivable you might find the latter?
Leavers could choose to say, "I realise this will hurt me economically, but I choose to vote Leave for reasons which I see as transcending the economic".
I don't know whether I would have voted along those lines were I British, but it is far more respectful to recognise their choice as a valid alternative than to patronise them as dupes and stooges who don't know what's good for them.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
on which to base their vote, some of which might not have been susceptible of truth/untruth analysis - de gustibus non est disputandum.....Nothing in the Leave Campaign was true.
Non sequitur.
Even if it were granted that "nothing" in the Leave campaign was true in economic and similar areas, Leavers could still agree with that, but decide to vote leave anyway for subjective reasons of national identity or whatever.
You might not feel that sentiment yourself, but it is meaningless to say that it is "wrong".
quote:
It would still have been awful if people had got their information correct and still voted Leave
Why?
quote:
Many, if not most, of those who voted Leave have created real disadvantage to themselves by trying to protect themselves from imaginary harm.
Once again, this comes back to the arrogant and manipulative concept of "false consciousness".
Who are you, or anyone else, to tell other people that their economic interests take pred=cedence over their personal feelings of national identity, however inconceivable you might find the latter?
Leavers could choose to say, "I realise this will hurt me economically, but I choose to vote Leave for reasons which I see as transcending the economic".
I don't know whether I would have voted along those lines were I British, but it is far more respectful to recognise their choice as a valid alternative than to patronise them as dupes and stooges who don't know what's good for them.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
lB--
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think one's views should always be open to examination. Does that qualify?
Hmmm...to me, that's not the same as (actively/perpetually?) seeking to challenge your worldview.
Hmmh. Thinking about that, let me get back to you.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Leavers could choose to say, "I realise this will hurt me economically, but I choose to vote Leave for reasons which I see as transcending the economic".
So, why do you think the reasoning stated for the vilification of foreigners? The stated reasoning for very many was economic. Cost of benefits, taking of jobs. Granted, there are some unapologetic racists who just hate "foreigners", but that is not what most say.
I've actually spoken to Leavers, I've actually read the propaganda.
I won't say that you are speaking of non-existent people, but they are as difficult to find as quarks.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Having bothered to check the figures as given in the Lord Ashcroft polls, the reasons voters gave for voting leave weren't based on the statistics, but on beliefs around sovereignty.
The main reasons given were:
1. taking control of decision making - 49%
2. taking control of immigration and borders - 33%
3. not having a choice about further EU expansion - 13%
quote:
Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
Economics was not the main issue for leave voters.
Remain voters, however, chose economic reasons, 43% gave it as their main reason for voting remain and another 31% voted remain as they felt that the EU agreement at the time gave the best of both worlds for the UK.
Could you argue that this voting pattern is post-factual? That the leave voters choosing different criteria not based on concrete facts is post factual? Or just a different way of making decisions.
Is this discussion predicated upon the assumption that all voters should use factual information to make their voting decisions?
Change.org currently has a petition asking that the UK has rules for election campaigns mirroring those for advertising standards and there has been a recent similar petition in the US. Ironically, those advertising standards are affected by Brexit as much of the legal framework comes under EU directives.
Advertising Standards Authority
Impact of Brexit on advertising regulations
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The main reasons given were:
1. taking control of decision making - 49%
2. taking control of immigration and borders - 33%
3. not having a choice about further EU expansion - 13%
The same applies. The Leave campaign was lacking in facts.
I'm going to leave 1 and 2 for now as the evidence and argument is complicated. I will assert that I do not believe Brexit will achieve either 1 or 2. Sorry, only an assertion for now.
3 is really easy to dismantle. It is nonsense.
In order for any nation to join the EU, all members must give their ascent. So we did have a choice a week or so ago about who might join the EU, we no longer do.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The main reasons given were:
1. taking control of decision making - 49%
2. taking control of immigration and borders - 33%
3. not having a choice about further EU expansion - 13%
<snip>
Economics was not the main issue for leave voters.
Other than the straight racism, and some hazy "security" issues,I am not sure how immigration isn't an economic issue.
And points one and two have economic aspects as well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Oh, I realise that the reasons given have economic implications, but I voted remain as I bothered to read the fact checking sites and weigh up the issues.
My point is that I suspect many of those voting remain were voting emotionally, on what felt right to them, and they felt that they wanted to get out from under the bossy bureaucracy of the EU and that they feel the borders are under threat from immigration and that leaving the EU would change that. There couldn't possibly be any connection to the tabloid headlines blaming all the ills of the UK on the EU, could there? (And yes, I am being sarcastic)
I suspect the opening post is starting from a belief that everyone should vote after weighing up the issues. But that really doesn't seem to have happened for the 52% voting Leave. So maybe the divide is between those who voted after fact checking and those who voted emotionally, on gut instinct.
I'm going to wander off and start a thread on gut instinct.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The main reasons given were:
1. taking control of decision making - 49%
2. taking control of immigration and borders - 33%
3. not having a choice about further EU expansion - 13%
The same applies. The Leave campaign was lacking in facts.
I'm going to leave 1 and 2 for now as the evidence and argument is complicated. I will assert that I do not believe Brexit will achieve either 1 or 2. Sorry, only an assertion for now.
3 is really easy to dismantle. It is nonsense.
In order for any nation to join the EU, all members must give their ascent. So we did have a choice a week or so ago about who might join the EU, we no longer do.
AFZ
You seem to be under the delusion that your view about what is likely to happen constitutes a fact.
I don't think you can have future-tense facts. If you're talking about what will happen, there are no facts on either side.
And point 3 is really easy to interpret. It's an intensifier on 1 and 2. It says that the situation (no say in decisions and too many foreigners with a right to one's own country) is getting worse. If the problems with the EU were solved, then EU enlargement wouldn't be an issue. Nothing illogical or unreasonable or contrary to facts here.
A post-factual society might be one full of people who don't know what a fact is. So far, you're giving a good impression of being one of them.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Russ, it's a question of looking at the mechanisms which were in place (until they were kicked away in a fit of wilful national petulance), and those that are available to come into place following said fit.
There is no foreseeable mechanism by which we can continue trade with the EU and magically attain the control over migration that some are looking for. Freedom of movement and freedom of residence are conditions for membership of the EEA, so there is no way that the control is going to happen. Indeed, in terms of understanding what would have to replace EU membership in order for us not to massively impoverish ourselves, it just isn't, so campaigning on the basis that a vote is going to achieve something that it just can't is downright dishonest.
On the other hand, through qualified majority voting and our veto, we already had a significant input to decisions within the EU where we had not derogated out of a given area. Ironically, we have now effectively derogated out of the whole thing, but have to agree to be bound by EU regulations to be members of the EEA. So we're worse off now than we were.
All of this was validly predictable on 22 June, and many were. The post factual elements are that a) no-one was listened because "the usual suspects were speaking - why should that matter, if what they are saying is true? - and b) no-one is being held accountable for the lies that the Leave campaign told from beginning to end. No-one is being forced to try and get the moon onto that ridiculous stick.
[ 07. July 2016, 07:21: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Politics should be held to at least the same standards as advertising. The Remain campaign might not have been perfect, but Leave were massively dishonest. Or massively incompetent, if they believed their own words.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
My point is that I suspect many of those voting remain were voting emotionally, on what felt right to them, and they felt that they wanted to get out from under the bossy bureaucracy of the EU and that they feel the borders are under threat from immigration and that leaving the EU would change that.
I would say that that was at least part of the picture - but on the other hand it leaves out the amount of effort that the Leavers put into attempts to debunk the economic arguments.
It was clear that at least some in the Leave camp thought that people could only be persuaded to vote along the lines you mention as long as they were also sure that this wasn't going to cost them a huge amount (there were some studies that backed this up, where people proved less willing to vote Leave as soon as it was suggested that doing so would incur a relatively modest cost to their own finances).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Politics should be held to at least the same standards as advertising. The Remain campaign might not have been perfect, but Leave were massively dishonest. Or massively incompetent, if they believed their own words.
I suppose Leave was more exciting in a way, the sense that one could knock down the barn doors and run away to freedom. Although interestingly, young people didn't seem that impressed with it. And I suppose some old people had a nostalgic image of Britain of yore, full of handsome white people, thatched cottages, homespun cloth, and freshly churned butter. Bit like the Hovis ad. Also a bit like Kinder Kirche Kuche, sorry about the missing umlaut.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The main reasons given were:
1. taking control of decision making - 49%
2. taking control of immigration and borders - 33%
3. not having a choice about further EU expansion - 13%
The same applies. The Leave campaign was lacking in facts.
I'm going to leave 1 and 2 for now as the evidence and argument is complicated. I will assert that I do not believe Brexit will achieve either 1 or 2. Sorry, only an assertion for now.
3 is really easy to dismantle. It is nonsense.[...]
You seem to be under the delusion that your view about what is likely to happen constitutes a fact.
I don't think you can have future-tense facts. If you're talking about what will happen, there are no facts on either side. [...]
Is point 3 about current facts or future facts?
Point 3 was about the UK "not having a choice about further EU expansion".
To me, that sounds like the Leave campaign's claim that the UK could not veto another country joining the EU. If the UK can veto another country joining, then the UK would 'have a choice' about 'further EU expansion'
Did the Leave campaign claim that the UK would not be able to veto other countries joining the EU?
We can see a government minister and prominent Leave campaigner, Penny Mordaunt MP, denying that the UK has a veto here, 2 minutes into the video (there is also a transcript of this part of the interview in the blog, if you follow the link). To me, it seems clear that she denied that the UK has a veto.
Is her claim based on facts? Article 49 of the Lisbon Treaty says that "The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously ... [if there is an agreement for the new country to join] This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements"
The source I linked to (for the video) interprets Article 49 as meaning that every member of the EU has veto.
For me, this seems clear: a prominent Leave campaigner claimed that the UK could not veto a country's application for EU membership. Based on current facts - not future facts - that claim does appear to be wrong.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You seem to be under the delusion that your view about what is likely to happen constitutes a fact.
I have many delusions. This is not one of them.
Alwyn has covered the legal position really well.
Put simply there is no way a new country can join the EU without unanimous agreement of all nations. The only way this can change (to say, qualified majority voting) is with a new treaty. New treaties only occur with unanimous consent.
Is it possible that some kind of different relationship with other European countries could be forced on the UK? Only in the sense that anything is possible.
Something I talked about a week before the vote...
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
