News BREXIT - more good than bad or more bad than good?

[russ_watters]

According to this poll from a few days ago, only 5% of voters feel they were lied to and 47% remain too dumb to be allowed to vote (though even much of the change may be due to voter turnout):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...gainst-brexit-today-opinion-polls-suggest/amp

 

[fresh_42]

The solution is not "too dumb to vote". The solution has to be education and qualification. Unfortunately, this is not in the interest of certain political groups as can be seen these days.

 

[russ_watters]

The solution is not "too dumb to vote". The solution has to be education and qualification.

It would be a Goodwin's law violation for me to point out what's wrong with that.

[caveat: "qualification" is still "too dumb to vote"]

 

[fresh_42]

It would be a Goodwin's law violation for me to point out what's wrong with that.

[caveat: "qualification" is still "too dumb to vote"]

Choose another comparison though. What should be wrong to set people in a status where they actually can make qualified decisions? At least I have learned at school that this is a premise for democracies, or at least should be in theory.

 

[russ_watters]

Choose another comparison though. What should be wrong to set people in a status where they actually can make qualified decisions? At least I have learned at school that this is a premise for democracies, or at least should be in theory.

In the US, yes, qualifications for voting are anathema because by definition they require an authority's judgement. Historically they are used for discrimination/marginalization. And as we've seen in this thread, the authority can simply decide that anyone who disagrees with the authority is unqualified.

The Goodwin's Law thing was about the first part: people with wrong opinions require "re-education".

This issue has a nearly exactly 50/50 opinion split, which to me should mean "the other side" (whichever that is) should be respected as a real opinion. This isn't anti-vax or flat Earth!

 

[fresh_42]

Goodwin's Law?

It is the prototype (here) of an example in which a mass of people had been talked into a decision they would never have made if asked as a person. If you like, take this example from MIB:

Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

 

[fresh_42]

And as we've seen in this thread, the authority can simply decide that anyone who disagrees with the authority is unqualified.

No, that is definitely not what I wanted to say. I only prefer a "facts on the desk" policy over a manipulative pseudo information. And yes, it requires a measure of truth. If this is impossible in your mind, that a fact cannot be verified as such, then the entire discussion is obsolete.

... wait a second 4th and long ...

 

[Orodruin]

According to this poll from a few days ago, only 5% of voters feel they were lied to and 47% remain too dumb to be allowed to vote

Has anybody else referenced "too dumb to vote" in this thread. There is a huge difference between misinformed and dumb. The problem is that, given the right channels to influence people, it is rather easy to do so - even to the point that you can get them to vote contrary to their own interests. Democracy is not infallible in any way or form, to quote Churchill:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…

To me, the biggest problem with the Brexit referendum was not that people were stupid or dumb. The biggest problem was that there was no real option being offered, but rather a fluid notion sprinkled with a few promises of unicorns. The most reasonable argument for a confirmatory vote would have been that nobody knew what they were actually voting for in 2016, not because of being dumb but because it was completely unclear what Brexit would mean. "Brexit means Brexit" is the problem here, because there are many forms of Brexit and the lack of a definite one in the referendum meant that the Leave campaign could tailor their argument to any voter by changing the message regarding what form of Brexit was intended. The idea of a confirmatory vote was even proposed as possible step in the process by leading brexiters (until they won the referendum).

 

[PeroK]

In 2014 Scotland voted to remain in the EU.

In 2014 Scotland voted to remain in the UK (by 55%-45%). One major issue that the Independence movement faced was that Spain made it clear that they would veto an independent Scotland joining the EU(!). If Scotland had gone independent, it was very likely they would not have been allowed into the EU.

Ironically, the only way at that time for Scotland to stay in the EU was to stay united with England. But, then of course England voted to leave the EU anyway. Sometimes you can't win!

 

[Orodruin]

One major issue that the Independence movement faced was that Spain made it clear that they would veto an independent Scotland joining the EU(!). If Scotland had gone independent, it was very likely they would not have been allowed into the EU.

It should be mentioned that this was largely the result of the Spanish domestic independence movements, most notably in Catalonia. It was also a previous Spanish government (Spain has also had something like 4 general elections in as many years, much due to the emergence of new parties challenging the de facto two-party system). Scottish acceptance into the EU would surely not have been automatic, but it might have come around in time.

On the contrary, Donald Tusk (now unfettered as he has stepped down from being president of the European Council) recently said that the EU was likely to look favourably on an application for membership from Scotland if it were to become independent. Of course, it would still have to go through the regular application process, which in itself can take years if not decades.

 

[PeroK]

It should be mentioned that this was largely the result of the Spanish domestic independence movements, most notably in Catalonia. It was also a previous Spanish government (Spain has also had something like 4 general elections in as many years, much due to the emergence of new parties challenging the de facto two-party system). Scottish acceptance into the EU would surely not have been automatic, but it might have come around in time.

On the contrary, Donald Tusk (now unfettered as he has stepped down from being president of the European Council) recently said that the EU was likely to look favourably on an application for membership from Scotland if it were to become independent. Of course, it would still have to go through the regular application process, which in itself can take years if not decades.

It's too late now. The doubt over EU membership also left Scotland with no clear plan for a currency post-independence. In any case, Scottish independence needed certainty on the EU issue. I'm not saying the result would have been different, but without certainty on remaining part of Europe, Scottish independence was doomed.

 

[Vanadium 50]

n 2014 Scotland voted to remain in the UK (by 55%-45%)

Oops. I meant "UK".

 

[Vanadium 50]

The doubt over EU membership also left Scotland with no clear plan for a currency post-independence.

There is the Scottish Pound. It couldn't be any harder to spend one in London than it is now.

 

[Klystron]

On the subject of an informed citizenry, both @fresh_42 and @russ_watters, among other members, make valid points. Voters have a duty to educate themselves and each other to the best of their ability before casting votes. Voting remains a right and privilege of each citizen within a framework of reliable information.

For example, I have renewed digital subscriptions to the Washington Post and New York Times in addition to PBS and BBC news feeds anticipating the vital 2020 presidential election. I also read articles from The Guardian, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, local and international news sources to stay informed. I plan to caucus with my neighbors later this month to help choose candidates for office.

Voting in the state I grew up in became quite difficult as more and more referendums saturated voter ballots. I remember studying over 25 pages of ballot information and dozens of public sources to decide a fresh water initiative among many where even the sponsors and principle opponents of the measure remained obscure.

While my current home state avoids much of that ballot expansion, we must vote for municipal judges and other local civil servants. Finding reliable information on these candidates remains very difficult, particularly when diverse candidates have similar names, leaving informed choice problematic.

Brexit, and Catalonia and Scottish independence movements remind me of historical attempts to separate California into smaller states, if only to improve representation at the state and federal levels and reform taxation.

[Edit 20200213: "The Guardian" should be "Reuters". While I read the some Guardian articles, Reuters appears in my news feed as a source for international news. Thanks.]

 

[fresh_42]

... to separate California into smaller states, if only to improve representation ...

The electoral college is a topic for its own ... Best thing I've ever heard was from TX. As I told a friend of mine that there are people in TX who want the state to leave the US, she replied: "Yes, but in that case, Austin will leave Texas."

It's currently not only the US and UK. National movements appeared in many other countries, too, and often won elections. As if nationalism had ever solved a single problem! However, it caused two world wars with countless deaths and further back in history, things don't look much better. People apparently have a strong desire for simplification, and nationalistic illusions are the simplest possible. I cannot believe that 8 billion people on only $150,000,000\, km^2$ land - of which great parts are inhabitable - allow simple or even local solutions anymore.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It's too late now. The doubt over EU membership also left Scotland with no clear plan for a currency post-independence. In any case, Scottish independence needed certainty on the EU issue. I'm not saying the result would have been different, but without certainty on remaining part of Europe, Scottish independence was doomed.

I frankly don't follow here. Why is it too late for the people of Scotland to choose to separate from the UK in another referendum, and (potentially) join the EU at this stage?

On the currency side, Scotland could, for example, adopt the UK pound sterling as a temporary currency, on the path of adopting the Euro.

It's also clear that there is far more openness among other EU countries in accepting Scotland as part of the EU, and Scotland could make a compelling argument that they have always wanted to remain in the EU and were essentially forced to withdraw against their will (thus reducing concerns from EU member Spain about how Scotland joining the EU could embolden separatist movements in Catalonia and the Basque Country).

 

[Vanadium 50]

As if nationalism had ever solved a single problem!

Other than ending the Thirty Years War, you mean.

(For some reason, this reminds me of "Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?")

 

[fresh_42]

Other than ending the Thirty Years War, you mean.

(For some reason, this reminds me of "Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?")

What has religion to do with it? Except you didn't mean 1618-1648.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I'm a fan of self-determination of smaller political subdivisions when they decide to do so in a democratic manner.

Otherwise, the size and scale of government only grows, and the larger polity may not appreciate the needs and unique features of smaller constituents.

"Let my people go."

 

[Vanadium 50]

Except you didn't mean 1618-1648.

I thought I did. What did I mean instead?

 

[fresh_42]

I thought I did. What did I mean instead?

The solution of this war was a draw and a freeze of a certain situation, not nationalism. There was simply nothing of value left to conquer. Nationalism in the form of imperialism has caused this war, or what had Swedish troops lost on German soil? And as usual: disguised as a religious problem. It was definitely not the solution.

The problem with nationalism is, that it doesn't stop at the own border. It always has had a component of national interests on foreign soil. It is not a concentration on own development, it is an aggression against all others. At least I haven't witnessed / learned otherwise. If it was "mind your own business", I would certainly have a different opinion, however, it isn't.

 

[DEvens]

According to this poll from a few days ago, only 5% of voters feel they were lied to and 47% remain too dumb to be allowed to vote (though even much of the change may be due to voter turnout):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...gainst-brexit-today-opinion-polls-suggest/amp

Maybe you should check the bulb in your overhead projector.

There was a poll quite recently. It took the form of a general election. The remainers were invited to seek other employment. A non-trivial part of that is exactly the insulting attitude you display here.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

The solution of this war was a draw and a freeze of a certain situation, not nationalism. There was simply nothing of value left to conquer. Nationalism in the form of imperialism has caused this war, or what had Swedish troops lost on German soil? And as usual: disguised as a religious problem. It was definitely not the solution.

The problem with nationalism is, that it doesn't stop at the own border. It always has had a component of national interests on foreign soil. It is not a concentration on own development, it is an aggression against all others. At least I haven't witnessed / learned otherwise. If it was "mind your own business", I would certainly have a different opinion, however, it isn't.

Nationalism

1) identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations
2) advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people

The 1st definition of nationalism suggests much more imperialism than the 2nd. Historically, order is often reversed in the forming (or reforming) of nations. First, nationalism supports the political independence of a particular nation or people. Often, sometime after political independence is obtained, financial interests promote imperialist policies often using nationalist propaganda as cover.

But there are enough counter-examples to show that strong imperialism does not always follow from strong nationalism. Costa Rica for example has strong nationalism - they highly value their political independence, their culture and their unique features and status among the nations. Yet it is hard to find the kinds of imperialist examples in their history that are so easy to find in the case of England, the US, Russia, or Mexico.

I think the challenge for most countries is how to accept strong nationalism that supports independence and identity without letting it serve as cover for undue influence in other countries. But isn't this simply the national scale of the same challenge at the personal level - How do I have my personal independence and unique identity without attempting to exert undue authority over other people?

 

[Vanadium 50]

The solution of this war was a draw

I - and most historians - was that the Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, and created the modern nation-state. Specifically, that nations exercised exclusive sovereignty within their borders. That idea has sunk into such a degree that many folks can't imagine a time when this was not so. Remnants of pre-Westphalian thinking look quaint: Philippe is King of the Belgians, not King of Belgium.

 

[fresh_42]

I - and most historians - was that the Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, and created the modern nation-state.

This must be a special kind of humor. Sorry, I don't get the joke. Here is how the region where the war took place looked like in 1,700 (and please compare it with the map at 1600):

https://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1700/de_index.html

A few square miles of a principality doesn't make a nation.

 

[russ_watters]

I only prefer a "facts on the desk" policy over a manipulative pseudo information. And yes, it requires a measure of truth. If this is impossible in your mind, that a fact cannot be verified as such, then the entire discussion is obsolete.

I can't believe you could cite the Nazi-German propaganda machine and then still say such a thing. You're missing the entire point/lesson history has to teach us: government cannot be the one responsible for Truth.

 

[russ_watters]

Has anybody else referenced "too dumb to vote" in this thread.

Yes, explicitly and implicitly:

Because people are stupid and even worse: uniformed.

My understanding is that it is very well documented that most of the people who voted "leave" did NOT even begin to understand the implications, having been straight-out lied to by their politicians who promised that it would all be very simple and advantageous.

They've been getting a better understanding of it lately but it's too late.

There are some interesting statistical correlations with voting Leave or Remain. The most spectacular is with level of education (based on the proportion of graduates in the local electorate), in that areas with higher levels of graduates were far more likely to vote Remain...

So if anyone can come up with a scientific measure of gullibility for UK voters, I think there would be an even stronger correlation with voting Leave.

That doesn't take me wonder. The educated understand global economy...

This is obviously because the problems are real and the majority of better-educated people are indeed anti-Brexit...

There is a huge difference between misinformed and dumb.

No there isn't. It's a very thin hair to split. And here's why:

The problem is that, given the right channels to influence people, it is rather easy to do so - even to the point that you can get them to vote contrary to their own interests.

The problem with this view is that almost half the population made the "right" decision, so that means (if we follow the logic) there must be something in their mental makeup that makes them superior to those who made the "wrong" decision. They successfully saw through the misinformation when others with inferior makeup couldn't. There's really only two possibilities, and a razor-thin difference for those who couldn't see the "right" answer:
1. They aren't intelligent enough to come to the right conclusion.
2. Their biases are so strong they can't invoke their intelligence to reach the right conclusion.

What my - and I daresay @Vanadium 50's complaint is is that the very idea that the "pro Brexit" voters could have been making a correct decision for them doesn't seem to have occurred to the majority here -- even after he noted its absence! This is a breathtaking level of disrespect and condescension for the opposing view.

 

[fresh_42]

I can't believe you could cite the Nazi-German propaganda machine and then still say such a thing. You're missing the entire point/lesson history has to teach us: government cannot be the one responsible for Truth.

I can't believe how you manage to turn every statement of mine into its opposite meaning. The Goebbels quotation has been an example how a group of people can be manipulated to believe something they wouldn't as individual persons. It is basically nothing else than the definition of the term propaganda.

I did not say that government is responsible for truth, journalism is. A free press has to make sure that politicians don't get away with lies. This pressure has to be of a presence, that politicians don't have the chance to lie without being caught.

I did not claim that government is responsible for truth. However, in an open debate I do expect facts over lies, even from politicians. Otherwise their lies have to be exposed by the press.

I bet you you manage to turn these statements in any direction you want. And bold faced letters are certainly a good method to hide that you turned my statements upside down.

 

[russ_watters]

Voters have a duty to educate themselves and each other to the best of their ability before casting votes.

Yes, and my other half of the thought I want to emphasize: it is not the duty of government - indeed the government needs to be explicitly forbidden from it.

 

[russ_watters]

I cannot believe that 8 billion people on only $150,000,000\, km^2$ land - of which great parts are inhabitable - allow simple or even local solutions anymore.

I don't know how it works in other countries, but in the USA we have layers of government, because what matters to people is different at different levels of zoom. It is unreasonable and inefficient for the people of California to pay for and set the snow removal budget of Fargo, North Dakota. Not only are Californians ill equipped to judge, they would also almost certainly judge to cut the budget and apply it to their own projects, leaving Fargo buried.

On the global scale, we in the west don't want China making the rules for us. That's not unreasonable.

 

[fresh_42]

Yes, and my other half of the thought I want to emphasize: it is not the duty of government - indeed the government needs to be explicitly forbidden from it.

I start to see where we differ.

I do indeed think that going to school and receive an education is a public duty,
as it is to inform about political decisions and laws.
Politics should obey the same rules as any advertising company has to.

I have a different understanding of what are the duties of a state. O.k. you are a libertarian, which in my eyes is nothing else as anarchy, and you may be of this opinion. Having another doesn't make my state model a dictatory.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe you should check the bulb in your overhead projector.

There was a poll quite recently. It took the form of a general election. The remainers were invited to seek other employment. A non-trivial part of that is exactly the insulting attitude you display here.

I'm not sure but I'm thinking you aren't seeing that I'm harshly judging the side I disagree with in that post. The attitude I state is my collective perception of the majority opinion here, laid in stark terms, and I do not agree with it. It's a caricature.

 

[Orodruin]

No there isn't. It's a very thin hair to split. And here's why:

I see nothing in your quote that makes the misinformed people dumb. I do not think it is a fine hair to split. Rather, becoming misinformed is very easy even for smart people due to things such as confirmation bias. ”You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest one to fool”.

The problem with this view is that almost half the population made the "right" decision, so that means (if we follow the logic) there must be something in their mental makeup that makes them superior to those who made the "wrong" decision.

No, this is your inference. I have never said or thought anything like this, nor is it a logigal inference from what I have said.

There's really only two possibilities, and a razor-thin difference for those who couldn't see the "right" answer:
1. They aren't intelligent enough to come to the right conclusion.
2. Their biases are so strong they can't invoke their intelligence to reach the right conclusion.

3. They have been systematically exposed to different information. This has nothing to do with being dumb, it just has to do with different environment and exposure to differing world views and information. Your two options are really only exhaustive if you assume that everyone has the same background.

 

[russ_watters]

I can't believe how you manage to turn every statement of mine into its opposite meaning. The Goebbels quotation has been an example how a group of people can be manipulated to believe something they wouldn't as individual persons. It is basically nothing else than the definition of the term propaganda.

I did not say that government is responsible for truth, journalism is. A free press has to make sure that politicians don't get away with lies. This pressure has to be of a presence, that politicians don't have the chance to lie without being caught.

Then I'm thoroughly confused. A free press is what we have. You're saying it has failed, but then you also used a government run propaganda machine as your example of the failure. Your example is evidently the opposite of your point.

So please be explicit: rather than just saying the people are uneducated/unqualified, say who should rectify that and how it should be rectified.

My issue here is that in my perception you are arguing with reverse innuendo rather than explicitly stating what you mean.

I did not claim that government is responsible for truth. However, in an open debate I do expect facts over lies, even from politicians. Otherwise their lies have to be exposed by the press.

So again: how should that be made to happen? Again: a free press we have. It isn't working. So how does that get fixed?

I bet you you manage to turn these statements in any direction you want. And bold faced letters are certainly a good method to hide that you turned my statements upside down.

I can't parse that: how can bold face letters be intended to hide anything? Isn't that the opposite of what bold is for?

 

[russ_watters]

I see nothing in your quote that makes the misinformed people dumb. I do not think it is a fine hair to split. Rather, becoming misinformed is very easy even for smart people due to things such as confirmation bias. ”You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest one to fool”.

I suppose we just have different definitions of smart/dumb then. In my view, not recognizing facts and logic makes one less intelligent regardless of the [internal] reason why. I'm judging the outcome, not the mechanism. Also worth pointing out, I fulfilled your request to provide examples where the others in the thread on the "anti" side used synonyms of the word "dumb" to describe the "pro" side. So I submit that I am accurately using the word per convention in the thread.

3. They have been systematically exposed to different information.

...Your two options are really only exhaustive if you assume that everyone has the same background.

My options assume the same information*. Please explain how in today's day and age people can be "systematically exposed to different information" without choosing to be.

*My options do not assume the same background. Indeed, background is the primary reason why two people can make intelligent judgments with different conclusion: they have different values.

 

[fresh_42]

Then I'm thoroughly confused. A free press is what we have. You're saying it has failed, but then you also used a government run propaganda machine as your example of the failure. Your example is evidently the opposite of your point.

My example was a direct answer to a question about how people can be influenced and directed in a specific direction. Where did I say the free press fails? The school education is the weak point, which is the necessity to make use of the press.

So please be explicit: rather than just saying the people are uneducated/unqualified, say who should rectify that and how it should be rectified.

I think we have to spent a lot more effort in school education. As long as people make their voting decision dependent on what is printed in The Sun (or heard on Fox News in the US), as long do we have a problem. Our goal has to be that we enable people by education to read the NYT (or an equivalent newspaper of your preferred opinion). I meant this by qualification: Not to be satisfied with an argument by authority. Doubt instead of belief.

I can't parse that: how can bold face letters be intended to hide anything? Isn't that the opposite of what bold is for?

Nope. It is shouting and grays out the rest. It says: 'This statement is true!' no matter of context, the rest, and regardless of evidence.

 

[Mark44]

I'm a fan of self-determination of smaller political subdivisions when they decide to do so in a democratic manner.

And the smaller political subdivisions mean that the constituents are much closer to the politicians who represent them.

Otherwise, the size and scale of government only grows, and the larger polity may not appreciate the needs and unique features of smaller constituents.

I can empathize with the UK farmers who struggled with the mountains of regulations that came from the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. Furthermore, the EU Constitution is problematic, both in its length and its complexity. Per this article, https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hard-look-european-constitution, the EU constitution is 70,000 words, or 15 times as long as the US Constitution, which fits in a small booklet that can easily fit in one's shirt pocket. The complexity arises in its murky delineation of powers vested in the Union versus those of the individual countries. Quoting from the EU Constitution, it also states that

in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.

From the linked article, "That sentence suggests that Brussels might exercise some competence outside its exclusive authority if some undefined body decides that the EU could do it better than a member state."

 

[russ_watters]

I start to see where we differ.

I do indeed think that going to school and receive an education is a public duty,
as it is to inform about political decisions and laws.

...but you worded that blandly. It's not just "inform about political decisions", it's pushing people toward correct decisions, isn't it? You believe, in part, that people voted for Brexit because the government didn't properly educate them (directly or indirectly) about it being a poor decision, right?

...and then you used a government propaganda campaign as a counterexample. I see that as a contradiction.

Politics should obey the same rules as any advertising company has to.

Yes, on that we very much differ. That's a Government Truth Authority that Goebbels would certainly approve of.

I have a different understanding of what are the duties of a state. O.k. you are a libertarian, which in my eyes is nothing else as anarchy, and you may be of this opinion. Having another doesn't make my state model a dictatory.

To be frank, I'm not sure you're seeing the dictatory potential. When it comes to freedom of speech and the press, it's not so much a slippery-slope as an all-or-nothing proposition. I suggest thinking about the nuts-and-bolts of how such things would or could work in practice. Can you think about how you might apply, specifically, advertising-type regulations to political speech?

 

[Orodruin]

My options assume the same information*. Please explain how in today's day and age people can be "systematically exposed to different information" without choosing to be.

This is the entire point, why did they choose to be exposed to different information in the first place? Well, people have different backgrounds and histories (this has nothing a priori to do with values, values are only part of this). Anyone can go look at the CNN or FoxNews webpages, but persons who has grown up in different environments may have radically different views on these two news agencies. They have access to the very same information, sure, but that is only one half of the equation.

Also, given directed advertising and marketing in social media of today, I think it is rather naive to thing that everybody is exposed to the same information.

 

[Orodruin]

Nope. It is shouting and grays out the rest. It says: 'This statement is true!' no matter of context, the rest, and regardless of evidence.

I must say that I also agree with this. Putting bold statements into a text LOOKS MUCH LIKE USING ALL CAPS to me. My preference for emphasis is italics.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the entire point, why did they choose to be exposed to different information in the first place? Well, people have different backgrounds and histories...

Ok...we agree here. But why does this matter? If I say 1+1=3, does it matter if I had a bad math teacher or if I just didn't learn it correctly? Either way, I'm doing the math wrong.

Also, given directed advertising and marketing in social media of today, I think it is rather naive to thing that everybody is exposed to the same information.

You skipped the second half of the quote. And I even toned-it down to italics instead of bold because of a prior complaint. I'll rephrase to combine them, but I'm going back to bold: everyone has access to the same information.

 

[russ_watters]

I must say that I also agree with this. Putting bold statements into a text LOOKS MUCH LIKE USING ALL CAPS to me. My preference for emphasis is italics.

You skipped the second half of the quote. And I even toned-it down to italics instead of bold because of a prior complaint. I'll rephrase to combine them, but I'm going back to bold: everyone has access to the same information.

Lol, cross-posted. Yes, I specifically choose to use bold when I think there is a risk an important piece of a statement will be skipped, as it was in this case. Yes, I am indeed intending it to be louder, like caps.

 

[Orodruin]

Ok...we agree here. But why does this matter? If I say 1+1=3, does it matter if I had a bad math teacher or if I just didn't learn it correctly? Either way, I'm doing the math wrong.

You skipped the second half of the quote. And I even toned-it down to italics instead of bold because of a prior complaint. I'll rephrase to combine them, but I'm going back to bold: everyone has access to the same information.

Politics is not math, there is no ultimate truth. Even if everybody has access to the same information, it is not equivalent in terms of accessibility. Every single time you search on Google you are being presented with biased results. Every time you go to your Facebook feed, you are being presented with biased information. It does not really matter if I could technically access the information if that information is not presented in an equivalent way.

You skipped the second half of the quote.

I read it just fine, I just skipped it in the quote. (Note that I did comment on the relation to values.)

 

[russ_watters]

Politics is not math, there is no ultimate truth.

Respectfully, I don't think you are arguing on the side you think you are here. The prevailing view in this thread is - in my perception - that Brexit is objectively bad -- and if people were less stupid, better educated, less gullible (not my characterizations), they would have made the objectively true/better choice.

I read it just fine, I just skipped it in the quote.

Well you paraphrased it incorrectly, specifically with regard to the part you omitted. The qualifier is critical to the difference between "access" and "exposure". Or to equate them with the qualifier: choosing to access = exposure.

 

[fresh_42]

...but you worded that blandly. It's not just "inform about political decisions", it's pushing people toward correct decisions, isn't it?

No. Providing a data base upon which they can make their decision. I can expect employees to not lie to me, and government consists of employees. Information and facts can be expected.

You believe, in part, that people voted for Brexit because the government didn't properly educate them (directly or indirectly) about it being a poor decision, right?

See the picture of the bus. They lied, and yes, this should be sueable. Coca Cola is not allowed to!

...and then you used a government propaganda campaign as a counterexample. I see that as a contradiction.

Why? That was an example of a regime we do not want to have. Parties can make propaganda, government should not.

To be frank, I'm not sure you're seeing the dictatory potential. When it comes to freedom of speech and the press, it's not so much a slippery-slope as an all-or-nothing proposition. I suggest thinking about the nuts-and-bolts of how such things would or could work in practice. Can you apply, specifically, advertising-type regulations to political speech?

Sorry. We prefer to learn from our history and forbid excesses as in the Goebbels video. And, yes, I do not want to see something like the KKK on our streets again. The all part ends where it aims to take away the all part from others. Yes, that is a difference between the US and Europe, or especially Germany. Honestly? I felt far more personal freedom in Russia and do here, than at any moment in the states. I think the free speech thing in the US is folklore. You tend to see a country in the US which doesn't exist. Freedom of expression? That's ideology. As of today: someone sued the NFL for the halftime show. Super freedom that you have there.

 

[russ_watters]

No. Providing a data base upon which they can make their decision.

But you believe that Brexit is objectively bad, don't you? So "their decision" is really just the one declared correct decision, isn't it?

See the picture of the bus. They lied, and yes, this should be sueable. Coca Cola is not allowed to!

Can you cite a specific lie that you would have a government agency quash?
[edit]
I'm going to bed, so I'll put a finer point on it: clear-cut lies are actually not the norm in politics because most of what politicians say, particularly in support of a new policy, is promises and predictions. Promises can be lies, but they can't be proven ahead of time to be lies. Predictions can be found to be wrong later, but they can't be lies and they are hard to be shown ahead of time to be unrealistic.

Why? That was an example of a regime we do not want to have. Parties can make propaganda, government should not.

Because government policing the media to control the message is functionally the same as government-made propaganda. It's modern Russia as opposed to Nazi Germany.

Sorry. We prefer to learn from our history and forbid excesses as in the Goebbels video.

In the US we prefer not to have government interfering in media rather than just having a controlled level of government coercion of the media.

And, yes, I do not want to see something like the KKK on our streets again. The all part ends where it aims to take away the all part from others. Yes, that is a difference between the US and Europe, or especially Germany. Honestly? I felt far more personal freedom in Russia and do here, than at any moment in the states. I think the free speech thing in the US is folklore. You tend to see a country in the US which doesn't exist. Freedom of expression? That's ideology. As of today: someone sued the NFL for the halftime show. Super freedom that you have there.

That is so twisted. You cite specific examples where freedom is restricted in Europe but not in the US and then try to turn it around that the US doesn't have the freedom. No:

• Freedom is freedom.
• Control is control.
• Controlled correct message is not freedom, it's control.

What bothers me most about this view is the lack of self-awareness. It's fine that you think that some messages are too dangerous to be allowed to exist. I get the history and I get the risk of letting it come back. But you should be self-aware enough to recognize that that's a restriction, not a freedom.

 

[Orodruin]

Respectfully, I don't think you are arguing on the side you think you are here. The prevailing view in this thread is - in my perception - that Brexit is objectively bad -- and if people were less stupid, better educated, less gullible (not my characterizations), they would have made the objectively true/better choice.

You are the one who raised a math analogy, not me. The problem is one where you have Brexit voters quoting reasons for their vote where expert opinion and consensus is that Brexit will actually work against that result. If the vote is a correctly informed vote based on opinion, that is a different thing entirely. The problem with democracy is that such a setting is an unachievable ideal. You will always have people who’s opinion matters more simply because of their power to influence others (be that for social, economic, or other reasons) so a true democracy where everybody votes based on their own opinion formed solely from facts is unachievable.

Edit: Also, more specifically, a problem of the Brexit referendum was that nobody could know what they were viting for since the terms of the withdrawal were not set. While ”staying in” was a well defined option (status quo), ”leaving” was mixture of all possible manners of leaving. Information wise, this also provided the Brexit campaign with the advantage of tailoring their message to the audience, which they did with great success.

 

[fresh_42]

But you believe that Brexit is objectively bad, don't you?

No. In my opinion it is wrong, i.e. according to my values. However, I claim that the British public wasn't optimal informed and the Brexiteers told a lot of lies. The decisions have been made by feelings, so my impression, not by reasons. Who failed? Of course the pro fraction as they seemingly didn't succeed in displaying those lies. In the end too many people simply relied on the polls and thought nothing would happen since the others would have gone voting. As a consequence, not enough pro people voted. This is a common phenomenon in our democracies.

Can you cite a specific lie that you would have a government agency quash?

I don't think so. The lies came from those who were allowed to. That they haven't been contradicted was the failure, i.e. a lack of information, not a wrong information from the government side. People fell for those lies. And that is a failure of education in my mind - school education.

Because government policing the media to control the message is functionally the same as government-made propaganda.

Agreed. So? I want governments to inform correctly, not to control the media. And this is what usually happens in our democracies:

• laws have to be published
• governments run statistic offices
• treaties and contracts are public
• big donations have to be announced
• parliament sessions are public

In the US we prefer not to have government interfering in media rather than just having a controlled level of government coercion of the media.

And again you assume something I haven't said at all! The media can pretty much print whatever they want here, with a few exceptions concerning the Third Reich. Yes, that is a restriction. You should be fine with that, since it is a measurement to ensure the sacrifice of those who fought for our freedom of today wasn't in vain.

But you should be self-aware enough to recognize that that's a restriction, not a freedom.

We are. And we have independent courts. It is the price we have to pay. And it's cheap. Some idiots aren't allowed to publicly claim idiotic statements in case they intend to manipulate the masses. I consider this as a rule of respect, not as a restriction of freedom. Yes, it is a restriction for some idiots. I don't mind. Better than the alternative.

You cite specific examples where freedom is restricted in Europe but not in the US ...

One example.

... and then try to turn it around that the US doesn't have the freedom.

So? This is not a contradiction. In the US you just ban other subjects. And in my mind more than we do here. It's a problem to be a Nazi in Germany - not as much as I would prefer, but a bit - whereas it is obviously not in the US. But your song about free speech is ridiculous: ask Kaepernick, Fonda and the tribes living in the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. It might have a different color and different reasons, but the result is even worse in my opinion.

 

[WWGD]

Yes, explicitly and implicitly:No there isn't. It's a very thin hair to split. And here's why:

The problem with this view is that almost half the population made the "right" decision, so that means (if we follow the logic) there must be something in their mental makeup that makes them superior to those who made the "wrong" decision. They successfully saw through the misinformation when others with inferior makeup couldn't. There's really only two possibilities, and a razor-thin difference for those who couldn't see the "right" answer:
1. They aren't intelligent enough to come to the right conclusion.
2. Their biases are so strong they can't invoke their intelligence to reach the right conclusion.

What my - and I daresay @Vanadium 50's complaint is is that the very idea that the "pro Brexit" voters could have been making a correct decision for them doesn't seem to have occurred to the majority here -- even after he noted its absence! This is a breathtaking level of disrespect and condescension for the opposing view.

I don't know if you're including me here. All I can say is that my informal sample of both led me to the impression that Brexiters were overall less informed , not dumber. Wht? Because I saw many of their claims repeatedly effectively rebutted, from the claim of saving £350 million in healthcare costs by leaving ,that the EU was undemocratic and claims that their ( British) interests were not represented to claims that the EU was forcing immigrants upon the UK. In addition to not addressing at least the possibility that the EU may have been at least part of the glue that kept Europeans from going at war with each other periodically. Or that they would not, with 66 million population , likely be able to negotiate deals as good as if they were part of a block of some 500 million and $20T GDP. Or see them claim the EU had been a complete failure. I can't guarantee my judgement was completely unbiased but I think my point is defensible, whether leavers benefit or not. I never claimed nor believed they were dumb.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

As I mentioned previously, there's a strong selection effect that people accept evidence that supports their own preconceptions and ignore the opposing evidence. In this case the preconceptions were amplified by influences such as nationalist and racist propaganda, and much of the evidence was at best misleading and in many cases outright lies (on both sides). One of the big problems is that if someone gives the appearance of having a lot of authority, then the truth of their statements is less likely to be questioned.

One thing that does appear to be generally true is that people who are more likely to be concerned about potential issues and to ask questions were also more likely to vote Remain. I have noted that if you ask those who vote Leave about many of the more controversial issues, such as Northern Ireland, they either simply don't care or they assume that the politicians will sort it out.

The referendum was totally non-specific about what it meant to "leave" the EU, so it was in effect more like a poll on customer satisfaction with what we were getting from the EU with only two options "fine" and "not fine". The referendum was clearly described in advance as "advisory, not binding", so people felt free to express their frustrations. It should never have been taken as the last word based on such a marginal result.

A retrospective attempt to get the referendum nullified and re-run because of illegal violations of campaign spending limits by the Leave campaign failed specifically because the referendum was only "advisory":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992

Recent statements by Boris Johnson (and Dominic Raab) have revealed a new aspect of what he personally meant by "Leave". Despite having previously agreed with the EU position that trade without tariff and quotas requires a "level playing field", Boris has reportedly recently said the following:

"There is no need for a free trade agreement to involve accepting EU rules on competition policy, subsidies, social protection, the environment, or anything similar any more than the EU should be obliged to accept UK rules"

This is from:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-close-alignment-eu-rules-boris-johnson-trade

As the EU has always stressed that free trade within the EU and with existing partners requires alignment with the existing standards and rules, this statement seems to make it impossible to reach agreement. It also makes very little sense; if the EU were to try to export anything to the UK that did not comply with UK standards, I'm sure that we would insist on them accepting our rules.