Whatever the outcome of Brexit, it was still our (i.e. the electorate's) choice.

 

No, it was a simplistic advisory vote offering a world of possible outcomes which have yet to be agreed in any actual concrete fashion 2 years later because it was so woolly in the first place and meant so many different things to so many different people. However you are correct inasmuch as when asked "if it all goes horribly wrong who's fault is it - the UK or the EU?" the 50/50 split Remainer/Brexiters on a Newsnight panel pretty much all came to the conclusion that it would be the UK's own choice and the UK's own fault.

Which I found reassuring that no amount of anti-EU BS will change the underlying realisation that we did it to ourselves no matter what happens in Europe.

No, it was a simplistic advisory vote offering a world of possible outcomes which have yet to be agreed in any actual concrete fashion 2 years later because it was so woolly in the first place and meant so many different things to so many different people.

 

In a binary vote, that was pretty much inevitable, though.

 

However you are correct inasmuch as when asked "if it all goes horribly wrong who's fault is it - the UK or the EU?" the 50/50 split Remainer/Brexiters on a Newsnight panel pretty much all came to the conclusion that it would be the UK's own choice and the UK's own fault.

Which I found reassuring that no amount of anti-EU BS will change the underlying realisation that we did it to ourselves no matter what happens in Europe.

 

Somehow I doubt that'd stop whichever party is in opposition at the time, blaming the gov't if it all goes pear-shaped... :mellow:

 

Here's one for Queef...

 

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2016/10...vote-to-remain/

Macron: political divisions in Europe are like a civil war

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/...ism-nationalism

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-56...ays-Macron.html

 

Well what does he expect, when the EU tries to impose deeply unpopular policies on its members? :rolleyes:

The EU does not impose policies - countries create policies together.

 

Least of all on the UK WHICH HAS A VETO AND AN OPT-OUT!!

 

Or did till your Daily Mail lot rallied to the Murdoch power call.

The EU does not impose policies - countries create policies together.

 

OK - but those policies are then imposed on the populations of each country by their governments, whether they want them or not.

 

You know better than most that politicians are often out of touch with what their voters want. ;)

 

Then Tories force policies for the rich on populations in the UK, ESPECIALLY North East? We DESPIIISE them with every fiber of our being

Macron: political divisions in Europe are like a civil war

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/...ism-nationalism

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-56...ays-Macron.html

 

Well what does he expect, when the EU tries to impose deeply unpopular policies on its members? :rolleyes:

 

Or...Gullible folk fooled by right-wing fascists and Russian propaganda fail to blame to the real causes of their problems.

Then Tories force policies for the rich on populations in the UK, ESPECIALLY North East? We DESPIIISE them with every fiber of our being

 

All politicians pass policies their opponents don't like - Corbyn would be no different.

Or...Gullible folk fooled by right-wing fascists and Russian propaganda fail to blame to the real causes of their problems.

 

But labeling them doesn't make them go away - all that can be done is not to encourage them.

 

 

But labeling them doesn't make them go away - all that can be done is not to encourage them.

 

pandering to right-wing-press-promoted mob rule is a good way of ending up on the Road To Hell. Angry people act irrationally and have knee-jerk reactions to everything, and totally fail to think through consequences.

 

Look at Windrush and May & Cameron pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment and pushing through legislation which has evicted and assisted in killing British citizens. History teaches many lessons, and people continue to know shit about it while they live in their Daily Mail/Express/Sun/twitter/trolling website bubbles.

pandering to right-wing-press-promoted mob rule is a good way of ending up on the Road To Hell. Angry people act irrationally and have knee-jerk reactions to everything, and totally fail to think through consequences.

 

Fair point - but the converse can also be true : failing to listen to people's legitimate concerns (e.g. overuse of limited resources) can lead to unexpected results, like Brexit, or the election of a certain Mr Trump.

 

You can't force people to embrace multi-culturalism, and attempts to brow-beat them into acquiescence through legislation is like just to harden their attitudes.

 

What I am suggesting is that you have to meet them in the middle somewhere.

Fair point - but the converse can also be true : failing to listen to people's legitimate concerns (e.g. overuse of limited resources) can lead to unexpected results, like Brexit, or the election of a certain Mr Trump.

 

You can't force people to embrace multi-culturalism, and attempts to brow-beat them into acquiescence through legislation is like just to harden their attitudes.

 

What I am suggesting is that you have to meet them in the middle somewhere.

 

Sadly there is no middle ground with racism. It either exists and is tolerated or you fight against it. Tolerating wrong is the same as condoning it because it stays. I don't have a problem with making people ashamed to be racist and enforcing it because it's the right thing to do. Don't like it, then they can emigrate to a racist country, plenty of them about - though there is always the risk of being overthrown violently along with supporters of injustice I guess. Risk you take for pushing hatred that bit further. Unfair societies will always be unstable because once you have little to lose people will fight for change. That some fight for the usual wrong thing (immigrants getting the blame) is more of a traditional way to divert attention from the real culprits.

 

Herr Hitler being the epic case study.

Sadly there is no middle ground with racism. It either exists and is tolerated or you fight against it. Tolerating wrong is the same as condoning it because it stays. I don't have a problem with making people ashamed to be racist and enforcing it because it's the right thing to do.

 

That last sentence could be a double-edged sword, though...

 

 

That last sentence could be a double-edged sword, though...

 

So is doing nothing about it - well, a double-edged societal slow execution at any rate as people feel free to prevent people getting jobs, education, votes, money, political power, and huge murder rates of unarmed people - yes all this and more is going on in that bastion of human rights and democracy, the US of A. Going so well, all that tolerating the KKK....

 

Everyone is free to say and think what they want - UNLESS IT'S CAUSES HURT TO OTHER PEOPLE. Fairly simple concept.

So is doing nothing about it - well, a double-edged societal slow execution at any rate as people feel free to prevent people getting jobs, education, votes, money, political power, and huge murder rates of unarmed people - yes all this and more is going on in that bastion of human rights and democracy, the US of A. Going so well, all that tolerating the KKK....

 

Everyone is free to say and think what they want - UNLESS IT'S CAUSES HURT TO OTHER PEOPLE. Fairly simple concept.

 

There are 3 different aspects here :

 

1. Thinking what you want hurts absolutely nobody

2, Saying what you want can upset/offend

3. But only *acting* on what you think can cause (physical) hurt.

 

Getting back to one of your previous points; specifically : 'I don't have a problem with making people ashamed to be racist and enforcing it because it's the right thing to do.'

 

I am well aware that my views tend towards the authoritarian, which is why I am good at recognizing it elsewhere. If, for example, you were to replace 'racist' in the above sentence with 'gay' , the sentiments would no longer be considered noble - but that was exactly the attitude that *did* prevail iro homosexuality well into the 20th century.

 

I'm not trying to defend racism here - just pointing out that here, using the stick, rather than the carrot, is likely to harden attitudes, rather than soften them (*), not to mention starting down the slippery slope towards the whole 'power corrupts' paradigm. My point is - you have to consider whether the carrot or the stick is the appropriate choice for a particular problem.

 

(*) No doubt you are now going to point out that that is precisely what I advocate iro punishing criminals, but I am aware of that, so you don't need to bother. IMO it is another example of a case-by-case situation.

There are 3 different aspects here :

 

1. Thinking what you want hurts absolutely nobody

2, Saying what you want can upset/offend

3. But only *acting* on what you think can cause (physical) hurt.

 

Getting back to one of your previous points; specifically : 'I don't have a problem with making people ashamed to be racist and enforcing it because it's the right thing to do.'

 

I am well aware that my views tend towards the authoritarian, which is why I am good at recognizing it elsewhere. If, for example, you were to replace 'racist' in the above sentence with 'gay' , the sentiments would no longer be considered noble - but that was exactly the attitude that *did* prevail iro homosexuality well into the 20th century.

 

I'm not trying to defend racism here - just pointing out that here, using the stick, rather than the carrot, is likely to harden attitudes, rather than soften them (*), not to mention starting down the slippery slope towards the whole 'power corrupts' paradigm. My point is - you have to consider whether the carrot or the stick is the appropriate choice for a particular problem.

 

(*) No doubt you are now going to point out that that is precisely what I advocate iro punishing criminals, but I am aware of that, so you don't need to bother. IMO it is another example of a case-by-case situation.

 

No you are entirely wrong. I am not unfairly denying anybody the right to practise what they want based on personal religion race sexuality and your argument that this is what is happening is spurious and typically quoting from the far-right handy-pack on how to justify racism and bigotry.

 

What am I doing is DEFENDING gays, minorities, religion from being attacked and marginalised by people whose soul expressed aim in life is to de exactly that.

 

Words DO cause harm, or else why is there legislation to protect minorities and individuals from it.

 

The difference between someone promoting race annihilation and then carrying it out is one Hitler's-hair-breath away from happening and you are a fool if you believe otherwise. Words entirely carry out these movements to their logical conclusion, as we can see throughout Europe and the USA and elsewhere right now.

 

As usual you choose to ignore the mountains of evidence that permitting intolerance inevitably leads to injustice.

 

Racists can, quite frankly, go f*** themselves and their loathesome views. Sitting down gently with them and having them suddenly come to some fireside chat awareness that they have been wrong the whole time is ridiculous. They are harmful. You have no evidence WHATSOEVER that expressing and spreading hate does anything other than make it happen. Protecting victims and potential victims of these CRIMES is not in any way the same as fighting for the right to spread hatred and injustice (and hate speech is a crime, and suggesting otherwise of anyone who stands up for the law - when you constantly whittle on about criminals getting their just reward - is bordering on self-delusion).

 

Who am I hurting by saying they can keep their hateful views to themselves? No-one, they will still moan and do it anyway, but they won't be able to use the law to justify themselves. Who are they hurting by spreading hate? Everyone they are attacking. Stop trying to be clever using arguments by replacing "racist" with "gay" as if they are equivalent. They aren't, and if you can't see that you are being offensive to gays by suggesting for a moment that someone who wants all gays dead is the same as someone saying they don't want to be dead and please stop spreading that idea then you are beyond reason.

No you are entirely wrong. I am not unfairly denying anybody the right to practise what they want based on personal religion race sexuality and your argument that this is what is happening is spurious and typically quoting from the far-right handy-pack on how to justify racism and bigotry.

 

What am I doing is DEFENDING gays, minorities, religion from being attacked and marginalised by people whose soul expressed aim in life is to de exactly that.

 

Words DO cause harm, or else why is there legislation to protect minorities and individuals from it.

 

Actions *based* on words are what causes the harm you talk about.

 

As usual you choose to ignore the mountains of evidence that permitting intolerance inevitably leads to injustice.

 

Racists can, quite frankly, go f*** themselves and their loathesome views. Sitting down gently with them and having them suddenly come to some fireside chat awareness that they have been wrong the whole time is ridiculous.

We agree on this.

 

My contention though, was that progressiveness is incompatible with authoritarianism.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/progressive

 

 

Who am I hurting by saying they can keep their hateful views to themselves? No-one, they will still moan and do it anyway, but they won't be able to use the law to justify themselves. Who are they hurting by spreading hate? Everyone they are attacking. Stop trying to be clever using arguments by replacing "racist" with "gay" as if they are equivalent. They aren't, and if you can't see that you are being offensive to gays by suggesting for a moment that someone who wants all gays dead is the same as someone saying they don't want to be dead and please stop spreading that idea then you are beyond reason.

 

That was not how I intended my comment to be interpreted - but I have ceased to be surprised when that happens here.

 

Perhaps you have forgotten that I have repeatedly condemned racists, and I would be delighted if every single one of them were to disappear overnight!

Edited April 20, 20187 yr by vidcapper

Actions *based* on words are what causes the harm you talk about.

 

We agree on this.

 

My contention though, was that progressiveness is incompatible with authoritarianism.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/progressive

That was not how I intended my comment to be interpreted - but I have ceased to be surprised when that happens here.

 

Perhaps you have forgotten that I have repeatedly condemned racists, and I would be delighted if every single one of them were to disappear overnight!

 

havent forgotten, but you ignore the bigger picture so wrapped are you in your own pet peeves.

 

being allowed to kill petty criminals is authoritarianism set to mob rule. Being allowed to oppress minorities is authoritarianism in action, verbally or physically.

 

Freedom to express does not include the freedom to cause genocide or any variation thereof. You ignore reality. Whenever I have suggested you are happy about people having the right to hypothetically suggest, say, the people of Cheltenham being strung up from lamp-posts IMMEDIATELY. Cos they all deserve it in their middle-class smugness, for example (not my opinion I hasten to add, I love Gloucestershire, went to school down the road from you) and should be allowed to campaign outside your house with some ropes to illustrate their point of view (as opposed to people doing that outside a gay bar) then you refuse to say you would be happy to accept that. Because that is what you are saying for everybody else, that we should be happy to accept a lifetime of verbal abuse (and inevitably worse) because you have "principles" about unlimited free speech. Bullshit. People's words (and physical abuse) made my life a misery, thanks all the same, and they don't have the right to ruin my life for NO REASON WHATSOEVER other than they are tosspots.

 

We have covered this ground many times and you prefer people to die as a result of hate-spreading rather than follow the law as it stands, and I prefer the law as it stands. The day the UK changes that law to permit unlimited hate and racism is the day I leave the UK to become the cesspool it will inevitably slide into.

 

No further comment is needed.

 

havent forgotten, but you ignore the bigger picture so wrapped are you in your own pet peeves.

 

Am I not allowed to do that, then?

 

being allowed to kill petty criminals is authoritarianism set to mob rule. Being allowed to oppress minorities is authoritarianism in action, verbally or physically.

I've never denied being authoritarian where crime is concerned, bot OTOH I have *never* said it's OK for minorities to be oppressed. Surely specific statements like that are what count, rather than what could be mistakenly inferred from generalised statements?

 

Freedom to express does not include the freedom to cause genocide or any variation thereof.

 

Do you really think I'd disagree with that? :o

 

You ignore reality. Whenever I have suggested you are happy about people having the right to hypothetically suggest, say, the people of Cheltenham being strung up from lamp-posts IMMEDIATELY. Cos they all deserve it in their middle-class smugness, for example (not my opinion I hasten to add, I love Gloucestershire, went to school down the road from you) and should be allowed to campaign outside your house with some ropes to illustrate their point of view (as opposed to people doing that outside a gay bar) then you refuse to say you would be happy to accept that.

If it makes you happy, then I will confirm that I'm OK for you to do that. Other Cheltonians might not feel the same way, though.

 

We have covered this ground many times and you prefer people to die as a result of hate-spreading rather than follow the law as it stands, and I prefer the law as it stands. The day the UK changes that law to permit unlimited hate and racism is the day I leave the UK to become the cesspool it will inevitably slide into.

 

But I've never suggested that the law should be changed in the way you claim I want. The only changes I have advocated is that we be harder on criminals (which incidentally include the racists that we both detest).

 

No further comment is needed.

 

From you, or from me? :teresa: