cunego59 wrote:
And I'm hoping we're creating a generation that is conscious of what they're saying, because they're aware of the enormous impact words can have
Well, it won't hurt to be aware of our words and their impact.
But by changing the definition of the racist term the opposite is the case.
By lifting them on the same level and calling all of them (my grandma, Trump and Hitler) racist and you're (I guess unintended) marginalizing the term.
In fact it is a less aware use of language.
Calling someone a racist doesn't immediately compare them to Hitler, there's still room to differentiate, don't worry
I guess it comes down to our different opinions of what is racist, or how bad a statement is.
You find a certain statement not that bad, and calling it racist marginalizes the "real" racists. (-> term is used too loosely)
I find the same statement pretty bad, and not calling it racist would downplay its malice. (-> term is used too restricted)
This vote is a prime example why I'm against referendums on such large-scale issues. How can anyone who isn't involved in this professionally be expected to come to an informed decision, with all the variables involved, especially after a campaign that, as far as I conceived it, has been almost entirely ran on an emotional level? How can you put the fate of a country in the hands of the masses who, for the most part, won't be (and can't be) able to grasp the consequences?
And I'm not being condescending. I have lots of "I know what's best, the masses are stupid"-rants, this isn't one of them. But isn't this why we have professional politicians? To deal with complex issues for whose you need time and special knowledge to really understand them? To have the good of the society in mind, not the good of individuals?
I suppose there's a certain level of mistrust in politicians, and the assumption that they don't have the good of the people in mind but that of special interest. And I get that, to some extent at least, but still. Maybe some of you can help me understand
I disagree that referendums are a bad thing for cases like these. As you say, we choose our professionals already. However, on the base of what do we choose our professionals? For many people, it's simple one-liners and promises of more money. Then in practice, they just don't follow their promises and sometimes turn out to be incompetent, yet people keep falling for their one-liners. Should those people who just keep falling for these one-liners then not be eligible to vote, because they lack the knowledge about who or what they choose?
cunego59 wrote:
This vote is a prime example why I'm against referendums on such large-scale issues. How can anyone who isn't involved in this professionally be expected to come to an informed decision, with all the variables involved, especially after a campaign that, as far as I conceived it, has been almost entirely ran on an emotional level? How can you put the fate of a country in the hands of the masses who, for the most part, won't be (and can't be) able to grasp the consequences?
And I'm not being condescending. I have lots of "I know what's best, the masses are stupid"-rants, this isn't one of them. But isn't this why we have professional politicians? To deal with complex issues for whose you need time and special knowledge to really understand them? To have the good of the society in mind, not the good of individuals?
I suppose there's a certain level of mistrust in politicians, and the assumption that they don't have the good of the people in mind but that of special interest. And I get that, to some extent at least, but still. Maybe some of you can help me understand
Wow this is a incredibly well thought out and written post.
I honestly don't think alot of the people who vote either yes or no on this issue really understand what they are voting on, it is a complex issue that from the outside looking in I don't think has been explained very well on either side of the debate, I could have that wrong as I am in Australia but I don't think I am.
One thing I do think is that the EU as a whole has been good for Europe, it has been such an unstable continent yet since the creation of the EU it's basically been free of major conflict which is nothing to be sneezed at.
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
Should those people who just keep falling for these one-liners then not be eligible to vote, because they lack the knowledge about who or what they choose?
Of course they should be able to vote in general elections. But if you think that many of them don't even care to think further than one-liners and short-term personal interest in those, why would you want them voting on specific issues that are even more susceptible for emotional campaigning and irrational decisions?
To take it one step further, why even bother at all with a representative democracy if you end up with referendums for the big decisions? Then all we'd need is an administrative machinery, not a government.
Should those people who just keep falling for these one-liners then not be eligible to vote, because they lack the knowledge about who or what they choose?
Of course they should be able to vote in general elections. But if you think that many of them don't even care to think further than one-liners and short-term personal interest in those, why would you want them voting on specific issues that are even more susceptible for emotional campaigning and irrational decisions?
I agree with you that this is a problem. However saying that a lack of knowledge should mean that they are deprived of power, while in other cases they should keep the power, it seems like the line is a bit arbitrary.
To take it one step further, why even bother at all with a representative democracy if you end up with referendums for the big decisions? Then all we'd need is an administrative machinery, not a government.
I meant to say there would be a referendum for every big decision. However, it does look like that the way I wrote it down. What I meant to write is that they are not necessarily a bad thing. You shouldn't obviously write out a referendum for every decision. But when a representative democracy fails to actually represent the people (hard to measure, I know), I think the possibility should be there.
In the case of Brexit, I do think issuing a referendum is the right thing. It's clearly an item that has played for a long time in the UK. If it's something the people's representatives can't agree on, why not let the people decide. In this case there's a lot of emotional voting based on one-liners, but to me, it seems like this applies to both sides. I think that in the end, for such a fundamental decision, the rational mind will come into play for many.
In the case of the Dutch referendum, it went horribly wrong indeed. There was indeed a lot of emotional voting (middle finger to Europe, middle finger to Wilders etc.), there was a minimal turnout for the referendum to be eligible, meaning a lot of people stayed home, and the issue it concernced was not exactly the most important.
In any case, I do hope Britain stays within the EU. I feel that the EU is a great idea, but far from perfect. Still, leaving it won't solve anything, not for the EU, not for the UK.
Should those people who just keep falling for these one-liners then not be eligible to vote, because they lack the knowledge about who or what they choose?
Of course they should be able to vote in general elections. But if you think that many of them don't even care to think further than one-liners and short-term personal interest in those, why would you want them voting on specific issues that are even more susceptible for emotional campaigning and irrational decisions?
I agree with you that this is a problem. However saying that a lack of knowledge should mean that they are deprived of power, while in other cases they should keep the power, it seems like the line is a bit arbitrary.
I feel like it's much more arbitrary to do a referendum for some issues and none for others. In my opinion, the people hold plenty power by electing the government for one term, and then being able to evaluate their work by voting for them again or against them the next time.
Holding referendums not only potentially undermines the government, but also depreciates general elections. Because what do you need those for, if you can vote for the big issues individually once they come up? There's a loss of stability and power if a government isn't entirely sovereign over the course of a term.
But when a representative democracy fails to actually represent the people (hard to measure, I know), I think the possibility should be there.
That's a point I'm still not sure about myself. Four years can be a long time and a lot can change, both in the population and the government. I agree that there should be some sort of fail safe, not sure how exactly that could work though. But I don't think referendums on specific issues are the way to go. Maybe rather a vote of no confidence against the whole government (spontaneous, not all all thought out thought ^^).
In the case of Brexit, I do think issuing a referendum is the right thing. It's clearly an item that has played for a long time in the UK. If it's something the people's representatives can't agree on, why not let the people decide. In this case there's a lot of emotional voting based on one-liners, but to me, it seems like this applies to both sides. I think that in the end, for such a fundamental decision, the rational mind will come into play for many.
That makes it even worse!
I wish I could share your optimism, and maybe I should trust collective intelligence, but then I see Trump gaining the nomination and lots of other stuff and I think, no, maybe not
In any case, I do hope Britain stays within the EU. I feel that the EU is a great idea, but far from perfect. Still, leaving it won't solve anything, not for the EU, not for the UK.
Also, as a general thought: I think these referendums are manifestations of a tendency, throughout both government and society, to refuse to take responsibility.
On one hand, there's the people who can't bear the consequences of their vote in the elections, which is a government doing its job on its own; on the other hand, there's politicians who don't have the guts to act on their beliefs for fear of the people's disapproval.
Maybe that's a bit harsh on both, but I feel like that fits rather well.
I feel like it's much more arbitrary to do a referendum for some issues and none for others. In my opinion, the people hold plenty power by electing the government for one term, and then being able to evaluate their work by voting for them again or against them the next time.
I agree, it seems a bit arbitrary. However, in the case of such a fundamental decision it should be done, I think. I think that the choice in this case is far from arbitrary (though in the Netherlands it was, I think).
Holding referendums not only potentially undermines the government, but also depreciates general elections. Because what do you need those for, if you can vote for the big issues individually once they come up? There's a loss of stability and power if a government isn't entirely sovereign over the course of a term.
I don't think it necessarily undermines stability. I rather see it as a way of pressuring the government to actually pursue the people's interest rather than first giving in to the demands of the few and then get rewarded with a nice job once their term in the government is over. This means the government is under more pressure, but it doesn't necessarily mean a loss of stability, I think. I mean, we have just had a referendum in the Netherlands, where the vote was against the government, yet it looks like this could be the first government since quite a while that makes it to the end (I don't even know when the previous case was).
But when a representative democracy fails to actually represent the people (hard to measure, I know), I think the possibility should be there.
That's a point I'm still not sure about myself. Four years can be a long time and a lot can change, both in the population and the government. I agree that there should be some sort of fail safe, not sure how exactly that could work though. But I don't think referendums on specific issues are the way to go. Maybe rather a vote of no confidence against the whole government (spontaneous, not all all thought out thought ^^).
I see your point here, and I think I may actually agree with this, at least to some extent. I do see some organisational trouble in your idea, but we can just dream, can't we? I was going to post that a referendum on a specific issue could be easier, but come to think of it, with a collection of signatures you may actually get a lot of support, the same way our referendum was organized.
I wish I could share your optimism, and maybe I should trust collective intelligence, but then I see Trump gaining the nomination and lots of other stuff and I think, no, maybe not
Isn't that an argument against representative democracy as well?
In the end, emotional votes on both ends may even each other out, leaving the rationale to decide.
But as you say, I may be too optimistic here.
In general, I think it's impossible to get democracy to work perfectly. I think it's a question of drawing a line, and it's very interesting to see a different viewpoint in this case. I don't think we're fully going to agree on this, but that makes it even more interesting.
On that, we can fully agree!
I'm glad about that
I think this is going to be my last post here for today, as I have other plans for this evening. Quite a shame, as I do enjoy this debate, pleasure to discuss with you
EDIT:
Also, as a general thought: I think these referendums are manifestations of a tendency, throughout both government and society, to refuse to take responsibility.
On one hand, there's the people who can't bear the consequences of their vote in the elections, which is a government doing its job on its own; on the other hand, there's politicians who don't have the guts to act on their beliefs for fear of the people's disapproval.
Maybe that's a bit harsh on both, but I feel like that fits rather well.
I don't think it's always a case of refusing to take responsibility. Although I do see your point, I (again) disagree. I don't think it's a bad thing society can correct its own errors sooner.
And it seems like we have a different view on politicians. It seems like you see politicians as career/lifetime politicians, who are ideologists and have to fight to keep their seat. However, it seems to me as if most modern politicians are no longer ideologists, but just politicians who see politics as a step up to a better paid job in the corporate world (I can provide some examples in the Netherlands if you're interested).
The debate above is an interesting read, thank you both of you
As this is one of the few places I can get instant access to the opinions of non-British Europeans, I'm interested to hear what people from all around Europe think about the referendum, as while I assume the majority are in favour of the UK remaining in the EU it's something that's had little to no coverage in the media. It seems to me the whole debate has been very self-centred with little regard to what the rest of Europe actually thinks; instead we have, as could be seen in the BBC televised debate a couple of days ago, Boris Johnson getting everyone up on their feet by playing the nationalism card, which in actual fact has very little to do with the advantages and disadvantages of being in the EU, which inevitably leads to the emotional, irrational (?) voting talked about above.
Besides, I'm yet to hear a cogent explanation about how leaving the EU will actually solve the problems about which the Leave campaign keep complaining, without creating greater problems in doing so.
I think the simple way of putting it is that people who strongly dislike the EU want Brexit to happen as that would open for other countries to leave and ultimately the union as we know it to collapse.
As far as I can tell most people want you to stay.
Another group is those rooting for Scottish independence as Brexit could open for a new referendum with a different result...
I totally get this whole leaving thing. I've been pulling for Connecticut to secede from the US for a few years now, but it seems that that didn't work out the last times states tried it.
Of course, I do have a twelve step plan that would allow my town to take over the entire Northeastern United States and most of the area east of the Mississippi if anyone's interested.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
The really insane thing is the only reason this election happened was to try and head off internal conflict in the Conservative party. And not only has that conflict happened anyway, but has gambled the future of the UK in the process, which is fairly obscene
Crommy wrote:
The really insane thing is the only reason this election happened was to try and head off internal conflict in the Conservative party. And not only has that conflict happened anyway, but has gambled the future of the UK in the process, which is fairly obscene
I know. Mad.
Luckily, however, it's backfired big-time on Cameron.
Disclaimer- Most of my posts are me thinking aloud. And most of what I think is rubbish.
Winner of a FIFA Prediction Fair Play Award (a phrase becoming increasingly ironic) "... Because he (me) has a sound tactical mind in general..." jandal7, at 9:30 am GMT on 12th May 2016
haven't read up on the issues to much but as a not british, I don't see any advantage of britain leaving the EU from "my" side, because t̶r̶a̶v̶e̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶i̶c̶u̶l̶t̶ (UK isn't part of Schengen Area anyway so it probably won't change, unless they go full US retardedness) and import taxes from the UK to EU and reverse will probably return
Ste117 wrote:
Cameron also knew the only way he was going to win the 2015 election was by promising a referendum on the EU. Self glory.
Cameron didn't win the 2015 election. Labour lost it - thanks to one of the worst campaigns ever seen at a general election!
Today does scare me a little bit, as a UK citizen soon to be living in an EU country for a year - and one who hopes to continue to do so once I finish my degree. While I don't think a vote to leave is imminent, I do think it will be a little too close for comfort. For me, I don't understand why anyone would choose to leave, because for all of the EU's imperfections, the leave campaign have no plan for us leaving - and I can't support that in good faith.
