Brexit - the next steps

[Aruntraveller]

It comes from Rhiannon writing ' I voted remain because I wanted to feed my kids.' So the opposite by implication, i.e. Those who voted leave is that they wanted to starve their kids. It's just another example of offering by portraying one's own position as something as motherhood and apple pie as feeding your own children, and the others as being against that.

I got what you were saying there, don't agree with it, but I get that. It's this:

So do you think Brexit  voters should think it works?

But its all moved on so no worries.

[Rhiannon]

Didn't assume. Working from the evidence of your post about wanting to feed your children. It implies people who disagree want to starve their children. That is exactly othering.

Don’t be so fucking ridiculous. Believe it or not I can hold in my head the though that I had concerns that hadn’t occurred to others, while understanding that others believe those fears to be unfounded. That is so utterly pathetic and beneath you, frankly. Stop fucking reading my mind. You aren’t fucking psychic.

For fuck’s sake.

[Nearly Sane]

I got what you were saying there, don't agree with it, but I get that. It's this:

But its all moved on so no worries.

Why don't you agree? The I just disagree position is what ippy has done on this thread, and I doubt you think that is a useful approach.


To win the argument those of us who think remain is the best option need to stop just portraying the 'other' side as racists morons who by implication of what we might write want to starve their children.

[Nearly Sane]

Don’t be so fucking ridiculous. Believe it or not I can hold in my head the though that I had concerns that hadn’t occurred to others, while understanding that others believe those fears to be unfounded. That is so utterly pathetic and beneath you, frankly. Stop fucking reading my mind. You aren’t fucking psychic.

For fuck’s sake.

Then don't write posts that imply that you think that wanting to feed your children makes you different from people who voted leave. It's not about reading your mind, it's just pointing out what your post implies.

[Rhiannon]

Then don't write posts that imply that you think that wanting to feed your children makes you different from people who voted leave. It's not about reading your mind, it's just pointing out what your post implies.

They implied no such fucking thing. I was giving one big reason why I voted as I did. Who is fucking  ‘othering’ now?

[Nearly Sane]

They implied no such fucking thing. I was giving one big reason why I voted as I did. Who is fucking  ‘othering’ now?

It exactly implies it. If you voted to feed your children, then the opposite vote is against that. I'm not othering because I am not making a generalisation here, which your post does by implication.

[Aruntraveller]

Why don't you agree? The I just disagree position is what ippy has done on this thread, and I doubt you think that is a useful approach.


To win the argument those of us who think remain is the best option need to stop just portraying the 'other' side as racists morons who by implication of what we might write want to starve their children.

I just took her post as being one of the reasons she voted remain, that is if leave were to win then life would become more difficult. I do not see an implication of othering or of thinking that Leave voters want to starve their children. It just seems a bit of a stretch to me.

[Udayana]

Didn't assume. Working from the evidence of your post about wanting to feed your children. It implies people who disagree want to starve their children. That is exactly othering.

That's clearly incorrect logic and false.   

[Nearly Sane]

I just took her post as being one of the reasons she voted remain, that is if leave were to win then life would become more difficult. I do not see an implication of othering or of thinking that Leave voters want to starve their children. It just seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Then why draw attention to it? If it isn't saying that the 'other' side voted differently, i.e. To achieve the opposite, then what's it saying? In all such statements try sticking the word 'not' in As that's what it implies for the other side.  'I vote for peace'. 'I vote for the end to poverty '. I vote to save tiny babies from pain'. It's implicit othering that the people who disagree with you are voting against.

[Nearly Sane]

That's clearly incorrect logic and false.

No, it's clear in the use of voting for and against. It's the clear implication that if you stated voting for sonetningt, then the opposite is voting against. It's sticking a rosette on your vote and saying this is the lovely vote. And that implies the other vote is the horrible vote. In a referendum there isn't really a not guilty vote so it's dichotomies all the way down.

[Rhiannon]

Then don't write posts that imply that you think that wanting to feed your children makes you different from people who voted leave. It's not about reading your mind, it's just pointing out what your post implies.

Bullshit. If I vote Labour because I am against nuclear war that doesn’t mean that I think those who voted for other parties think it’s a good idea.

People have all kind of reasons for voting for and against Brexit. Do you think I’m too thick to realise that? You seem to have set yourself up as the only voice of reason here among both remainers and leavers and are so blinded by your own shiny enlightenment that you can’t see we aren’t all the ignorant muppets you choose to see us as.

[Aruntraveller]

Then why draw attention to it? If it isn't saying that the 'other' side voted differently, i.e. To achieve the opposite, then what's it saying? In all such statements try sticking the word 'not' in As that's what it implies for the other side.  'I vote for peace'. 'I vote for the end to poverty '. I vote to save tiny babies from pain'. It's implicit othering that the people who disagree with you are voting against.

I think Rhi has covered it but for example I vote Labour because I am concerned about the NHS. I don't necessarily think that all Tory voters aren't concerned about the NHS. In fact I'm sure they are. So I'm still not seeing this in the way you are.

[Udayana]

No, it's clear in the use of voting for and against. It's the clear implication that if you stated voting for sonetningt, then the opposite is voting against. It's sticking a rosette on your vote and saying this is the lovely vote. And that implies the other vote is the horrible vote. In a referendum there isn't really a not guilty vote so it's dichotomies all the way down.

Voting is not an exercise in abstract logic. The idea is that people vote for their own interests. Some will be much richer after brexit some fear that they will not.  Some vote for change, some for security.

[Nearly Sane]

Bullshit. If I vote Labour because I am against nuclear war that doesn’t mean that I think those who voted for other parties think it’s a good idea.

People have all kind of reasons for voting for and against Brexit. Do you think I’m too thick to realise that? You seem to have set yourself up as the only voice of reason here among both remainers and leavers and are so blinded by your own shiny enlightenment that you can’t see we aren’t all the ignorant muppets you choose to see us as.

If I'm the only voice of reason then you are all fucked beyond recognition. But maybe try and address the point rather than try the mind reading stuff? What's the point in saying you 'want to feed your children' if it isn't about othering? Do ippy or jakswan  have some other view? If not then it's a pointless statement.

[Nearly Sane]

Voting is not an exercise in abstract logic. The idea is that people vote for their own interests. Some will be much richer after brexit some fear that they will not.  Some vote for change, some for security.

And in saying that you vote to testify children implies that others do not. This isn't about abstract logic, it's about the conduct of public discourse.

[ad_orientem]

There is a tendency to portray the other side as being stupid or having bad motives. I'm sure we've all done it. It makes us feel superior and justifies our point of view.

[Nearly Sane]

I think Rhi has covered it but for example I vote Labour because I am concerned about the NHS. I don't necessarily think that all Tory voters aren't concerned about the NHS. In fact I'm sure they are. So I'm still not seeing this in the way you are.

So if you say I'm voting for the NHS, then you are implying that someone voting the other way in a referendum is voting against it? Honestly? If not then what's the point and value in the statement?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bullshit. If I vote Labour because I am against nuclear war that doesn’t mean that I think those who voted for other parties think it’s a good idea.

People have all kind of reasons for voting for and against Brexit. Do you think I’m too thick to realise that? You seem to have set yourself up as the only voice of reason here among both remainers and leavers and are so blinded by your own shiny enlightenment that you can’t see we aren’t all the ignorant muppets you choose to see us as.

Wow!...........both barrels.

[Aruntraveller]

So if a Brexiteer says they voted to leave to make the UK wealthier. Then they are by stating this othering me and implying that I don't want to make the UK wealthier? Is that really how it works?

I get your point that public discourse could be a whole lot better, but we'll end up not stating a pov for fear of "othering" people.

I'm just not seeing it.

[Nearly Sane]

There is a tendency to portray the other side as being stupid or having bad motives. I'm sure we've all done it. It makes us feel superior and justifies our point of view.

In most cases, as regards the bad motives,that has to be true. In almost all political positions though it's true of some of the people on our 'side' too. The point is to avoid generalizing about people.

[Nearly Sane]

So if a Brexiteer says they voted to leave to make the UK wealthier. Then they are by stating this othering me and implying that I don't want to make the UK wealthier? Is that really how it works?

I get your point that public discourse could be a whole lot better, but we'll end up not stating a pov for fear of "othering" people.

I'm just not seeing it.

Pretty much. Let's say 'I voted to leave to avoid fascism' - which is actually a viewpoint I've been given. Then voting to stay then means for that person either that I want fascism, or that I am too stupid to get that I am voting for it. We need to have a discussion with those we disagree with on specifics, while acknowledging that in terms of the general, such as feeding children, we might be in common ground. As soon as we bring up something and say we voted for i t, the implication is that the other vote is against that.

[ippy]

Ippy I don’t want to argue with you. I don’t think we even have argued. But I’m still none the wiser as to why you voted Leave apart from some vague thing about the ‘United States of Europe’, which doesn’t actually exist.

We're never going to agree about the EU and I think you've accepted that, this being so why do you then expect me to feed you with anything, anything at all about my views other than my stated wish for the U K to leave thee EU.

I can see the fact we're leaving the EU  must be a bitter pill for remainers, I would be fighting like hell if the shoe was on the other foot, this in or out EU ref is as I have said before, I've never experienced anything where there is such a bitterness between the advocates of the two schools of thought.

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

We're never going to agree about the EU and I think you've accepted that, this being so why do you then expect me to feed you with anything, anything at all about my views other than my stated wish for the U K to leave thee EU.

I can see the fact we're leaving the EU  must be a bitter pill for remainers, I would be fighting like hell if the shoe was on the other foot, this in or out EU ref is as I have said before, I've never experienced anything where there is such a bitterness between the advocates of the two schools of thought.

Regards ippy

Do you think continually not saying why you voted leave is conducive to understanding?

[Aruntraveller]

I can quite accept that people on both sides voted to make the UK wealthier without thinking that either side is "othering" the other.

I have been trying to have a discussion on specifics, because I had decided I wanted to move away from the relentless toing and froing over leaving, which I find pointless and tedious as one way or another we will leave.

I chose medicine, but no one seems to want to answer. So I'm not othering, but I would like to point out that some Leavers are avoiding issues.

Another article here about medicines:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/31/prescription-drug-brexit-pharmacy-supply-chains-shortages?CMP=fb_gu

Something really does need to happen and soon about this.

[ippy]

Do you think continually not saying why you voted leave is conducive to understanding?

I think my post 2096 to Rhiannon was very clear.

Regards ippy