6 ms·

As someone with no dog in this fight, I have to say that many of the pro-stay comments here are dismissive, arrogant, and the epitome of hand-waving "we know be

by Dr_tldr 10y ago

As someone with no dog in this fight, I have to say that many of the pro-stay comments here are dismissive, arrogant, and the epitome of hand-waving "we know best and everyone who disagrees with us is stupid or evil." It's an ugly and insular attitude that is itself usually a sign of ignorance of the other side's arguments and motivations. As a dev, I find it hard to believe that someone who can be so easily blinkered and so dismissive of others is going to be able to show flexibility and humility in their code and engineering decisions. And maybe you're just that good at compartmentalizing, but I wouldn't want to risk bringing someone like that onto my team. How can you work with people who you think are stupid and ignorant when they disagree with you, even when you won't explain your reasoning? And how will you ever be able to switch sides and admit you may have been wrong when you state your initial position in such absolutist terms?

lichform 10y ago
The disdain and disgust impressed on the elderly in this issue in particular is distressing. Seeing people advocate for selective voting or implying that the younger persons' views are worth more because of their older countrymen's vicinity to expiration is personally upsetting as a self-loathing Millenial.
- mentalpiracy 10y ago
  As another self-loathing millennial, it's also distressing to empirically see the detrimental effect of my elders making extremely poor choices that will fundamentally affect my life much more than theirs. Nobody really wants to disenfranchise certain voters. But it doesn't mean that we aren't frustrated with their poor choices either.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    This is a simple matter of disagreement. Your elders aren't "making extremely poor choices" in an objective sense. They're making the choice they believe is for the long-term interest of the country, just as you did. You should not assume idiocy or malice on the opposing side's part just because you lost. Informed, well-educated people can and do disagree. This must be valued and believed in a democratic society if it's not to tear itself apart. If it were up to me, minimum voting age would be bumped to 30 and votes would become more valuable as people aged. Personal experience and history is nothing to sneeze at. The open disrespect to just dismiss this by-definition-wiser voting block as making "extremely poor choices" is very distasteful and short-sighted.
    - Malician 10y ago
      You make a good point with your last paragraph: given the circumstances, if we held a vote on who should get to vote, the answer would not be one millenials would relish. Those calling for disenfranchisement of the elderly are not only morally wrong but would bring down the very system which protects young people. I do think that it is possible for a reasonable person to call certain decisions bad, even if it's not entirely objective. The vast majority of the credentialed economic establishment believes that Brexit was a tragedy, so does the stock market, and so do most of those educated on international political relations who study the subject. Of course, the rejection of the establishment by voters who are tired of having their will systematically ignored, mocked, and thwarted is the reason for Brexit, so for the Leave crowd that isn't much of a point.
    - vacri 10y ago
      I'm 43, and I think the idea of no-votes-until-30 is a crazy idea. Yes, the young are less informed, but they're also more interested in finding alternatives. The old are incredibly conservative, and as proven in this referendum, more fearful of diversity. They don't want to deal with change, which is a bad thing in a world that constantly changes - for example, keep in mind that the internet is only 20 years old, as far as the public is concerned. Cut off the young, and you take away the meat of the progressives, and your society will stagnate. Wisdom is definitely important, but so is the will to enact change. And if you want evidence that the old are just as susceptible to stupid politics, look to Fox News's target audience: the silver hair brigade. Or talkback radio. Wisdom in personal life (everybody has one) does not necessarily translate to wisdom in political life (where few actually do engage).
      - cookiecaper 10y ago
        >They don't want to deal with change Brexit is a pretty massive governance change. Everyone blames old people for its success, so I'm not sure why the narrative is that "old people won't vote for changes". I think it's less that older people are hostile to change as much as they've seen enough political opportunists and fraudsters that they have some firmness to their opinion (and again, this is a good thing). As Brexit shows, older people often do support changes that they believe would be beneficial. I know that my dad, for example, would really like to see some stuff change, even though he's a senior citizen. But he's not excited by Bernie Sanders. >for example, keep in mind that the internet is only 20 years old, as far as the public is concerned. I am 1000% behind the idea of changing the laws that govern intellectual property and internet access, but this is not an issue that's age-dependent. Few people in any age strata care or think about this because if their news sources have any vested interest, it's in keeping IP laws locked down as tightly as possible. You'll find near-universal praise for copyright among every age group, because the public is presented only one side of the copyright debate. Laws expanding IP rights and locking down tech access routinely pass with minimal debate or interest. The exception to this is the hacker subculture, where it's not really an age-dependent thing either. Some older persons involved in certain niche businesses may remember slightly-less-oppressive copyright regimes and want to go back to that. >Cut off the young, and you take away the meat of the progressives, and your society will stagnate. This is everyone else's complaint too, but it's begging the question. "Progressiveness" is not inherently correct. Social insistence on certain behavioral standards is good. We don't want to "progress" out of all of our values. >And if you want evidence that the old are just as susceptible to stupid politics, look to Fox News's target audience: the silver hair brigade. Or talkback radio. I know a lot of young people who are into Fox News and conservative talk radio. People consciously pick the news outlets that agree with them most often because it's more pleasant to listen to someone encourage your beliefs than discourage them. Conservative media is not specifically targeted at old people; it's targeted at all conservatives.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Well then, go vote. The reason old people get their way so much more is because they vote. I heard a young lady interviewed on the BBC this morning, talking about how young people felt betrayed because this choice was made by people who wouldn't feel the negative consequences. When the interviewer pointed out that a lot of young people didn't vote, she blamed the negative nature of the campaigns for that, rather than acknowledging that maybe if people want a certain outcome they should vote that way. It's the same situation in the US. The will of the people and the actions of the government don't line up all that well, and a lot of it is because young people don't vote. The government goes along with the will of the voters reasonably well. I'm sure you vote, but a lot of people like you just stay home. If you don't want your elders making all the decisions, convince your cohorts to go have their say.
- fnovd 10y ago
  What if your government voted for a lifetime stipend of $10000/month for everyone over 65, to be paid for by higher taxes on renters, students, and earners? I think there is a breaking point where it is unacceptable to support the wants of an aging population over the future of the young, even by majority vote. However, I don't think the Brexit falls into that category.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Here's the thing: old people don't vote for that kind of thing, at least not if they have children and grandchildren. They've invested decades of heavy personal sacrifice into building a future for their posterity. They're not going to counteract that lifelong goal and knowingly vote for something that will inflict real pain or hindrance on the generations they've parented. Personally I believe the elderly make much better decisions when voting precisely because they have something that gives their votes far-reaching meaning. Young voters care primarily about getting what they want in the moment; any other interest may be considered out of goodwill, but it is intanigble, whereas people with children and grandchildren truly care about the long-term well-being of the nation, because they know their posterity is going to be living in it, most likely for hundreds of years.
    - thomasahle 10y ago
      > elderly make much better decisions when voting precisely because they have something that gives their votes far-reaching meaning. Young voters care primarily about getting what they want in the moment. I'd be more positive about of future if this were the case. Do you have any examples of where this has happened? I always had the impression older people voted more conservatively, because they were tired of things changing, and mostly happy with their wealth and position in life.
    - makomk 10y ago
      Here's the thing: if you look at how the UK welfare system treats (say) the younger people who lose their jobs or suffer accidents or illness that stops them from working compared with how it treats the elderly, and pay attention to the politics behind it, or if you think about the emphasis on ensuring house price growth and who benefits, or... the comment you're replying to is an exaggeration of what already happens.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  I agree with you, I hate seeing comments that are dismissive of those who actually have some experience under their belts and some personal history. You'd think that people who were living and capable of remembering a pre-EU UK would have a better perspective on this particular issue. My personal opinion is that voting age is too young in most countries. It should be upped to 30.
  - lichform 10y ago
    But see this is the same issue, just in the opposite direction. I don't understand what relevance any of this identity politicking has to do with electorates. The idea of "One Person, One Vote" and that no one's vote is inherently more valuable that another's, irregardless of that person's gender, age, class, sexuality, mental ability or what have you. _Stupid_ people being able to vote is a feature. The young and inexperienced being able to vote is a feature. The crotchety old stubborn types being able to vote is a feature. None of these are bugs. The question of the hour is "What can we do to create a more informed, civically responsible public". To this end my honest belief is to encourage people to stop watching network television and reading editorialized, propaganda clickbait articles from partisan online sources (Your Brietbarts and Salons and Voxes and Gawkers).
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      I don't agree that allowing the young and inexperienced to vote is a feature. Inexperienced people make bad long-term decisions simply because they don't have the history to draw likely conclusions from. There's nothing wrong with that and there's nothing that can be done about it; it's simply a function of age, which no one can change. It seems accepted that a baseline amount of experience should be necessary, which is why we have a minimum voting age in the first place. I believe that the baseline is too low (and that it was intentionally lowered to more easily allow charlatans to acquire power). I agree that telecommunications, and especially television, have had a serious negative effect on the political discourse and that we need to devise a way to make people less vulnerable to them. Things were much different when you had to read someone's pamphlets and evaluate their proposals to decide if you supported them v. watching them wink at you on TV.
teh 10y ago
My rational brain agrees with you but I feel this decision was based on who shouted the most. I participated in some political online discussions (something I rarely do) in good faith and the responses I got were often uninformed (no idea what subsidiarity means, what the EU institutions are, the objectives of the Maastricht treaty, ..) and more often hostile ("fuck off you want us to give Germany another pounding?", "why aren't you grateful", "we have the most powerful army and sit on the UN Security Council", ...) After reading that for hours I came to the conclusion that these people are 1) stupid, and 2) arguing in bad faith. It was totally unlike a well paced engineering discussion. What's your plan for engaging in this kind of discourse? (I can link you to plenty of comments on HN right now that argue with words like "these people", "sickening", or say "The EU has no relevance to peace or war.")
- Dr_tldr 10y ago
  I suspect that if you went to a political site that was strongly catered towards the "stay" camp and took a "leave" position, the results would be about the same. The problem is that both sides exist in a self-reinforcing echo-chamber, but they both think that it's only the other side that's ignorant, conformist, and unreasonable. Arguing that the other side is wrong because there are stupid people who support that position for stupid reasons is implicitly arguing that there aren't any stupid people on your side. If you point to instances of people with idiotic opinions disagreeing with you but you ignore all the idiots who are on your side, you have a huge cognitive blindspot and cease to be credible except to other people with the same blindspot. For instance, your last sentence clearly shows your biases: you skipped over all the comments on this thread that are in the exact same tone, but share your opinion. In general, there is no point in discussing things with someone who is unable to summarize their opponent's position in terms that the opponent would agree are approximately correct. If you can't get to that point, that demonstrates there's not even enough common understanding to have an argument, since you don't even know what the other side is, or if the person you're talking to is a fair representative of it.
thomasahle 10y ago
Shock, Anger, Rejection, Acceptance. People just lost a lot of opportunity, unity and economic prospect. Let them be angry for a bit.
thrillgore 10y ago
It's the same with the Populism/Trump people and their counterparts in the US. Nobody wants to discuss a solution. Minds have been made up and if you don't agree with them, its all safe spaces, "neener neener neener cuck" and all that crap that goes with it. For a species that imbibed itself with the idea of the republic, we certainly like to squander that gift.

by Dr_tldr 10y ago

lichform 10y ago

The disdain and disgust impressed on the elderly in this issue in particular is distressing. Seeing people advocate for selective voting or implying that the younger persons' views are worth more because of their older countrymen's vicinity to expiration is personally upsetting as a self-loathing Millenial.

mentalpiracy 10y ago
As another self-loathing millennial, it's also distressing to empirically see the detrimental effect of my elders making extremely poor choices that will fundamentally affect my life much more than theirs. Nobody really wants to disenfranchise certain voters. But it doesn't mean that we aren't frustrated with their poor choices either.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  This is a simple matter of disagreement. Your elders aren't "making extremely poor choices" in an objective sense. They're making the choice they believe is for the long-term interest of the country, just as you did. You should not assume idiocy or malice on the opposing side's part just because you lost. Informed, well-educated people can and do disagree. This must be valued and believed in a democratic society if it's not to tear itself apart. If it were up to me, minimum voting age would be bumped to 30 and votes would become more valuable as people aged. Personal experience and history is nothing to sneeze at. The open disrespect to just dismiss this by-definition-wiser voting block as making "extremely poor choices" is very distasteful and short-sighted.
  - Malician 10y ago
    You make a good point with your last paragraph: given the circumstances, if we held a vote on who should get to vote, the answer would not be one millenials would relish. Those calling for disenfranchisement of the elderly are not only morally wrong but would bring down the very system which protects young people. I do think that it is possible for a reasonable person to call certain decisions bad, even if it's not entirely objective. The vast majority of the credentialed economic establishment believes that Brexit was a tragedy, so does the stock market, and so do most of those educated on international political relations who study the subject. Of course, the rejection of the establishment by voters who are tired of having their will systematically ignored, mocked, and thwarted is the reason for Brexit, so for the Leave crowd that isn't much of a point.
  - vacri 10y ago
    I'm 43, and I think the idea of no-votes-until-30 is a crazy idea. Yes, the young are less informed, but they're also more interested in finding alternatives. The old are incredibly conservative, and as proven in this referendum, more fearful of diversity. They don't want to deal with change, which is a bad thing in a world that constantly changes - for example, keep in mind that the internet is only 20 years old, as far as the public is concerned. Cut off the young, and you take away the meat of the progressives, and your society will stagnate. Wisdom is definitely important, but so is the will to enact change. And if you want evidence that the old are just as susceptible to stupid politics, look to Fox News's target audience: the silver hair brigade. Or talkback radio. Wisdom in personal life (everybody has one) does not necessarily translate to wisdom in political life (where few actually do engage).
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      >They don't want to deal with change Brexit is a pretty massive governance change. Everyone blames old people for its success, so I'm not sure why the narrative is that "old people won't vote for changes". I think it's less that older people are hostile to change as much as they've seen enough political opportunists and fraudsters that they have some firmness to their opinion (and again, this is a good thing). As Brexit shows, older people often do support changes that they believe would be beneficial. I know that my dad, for example, would really like to see some stuff change, even though he's a senior citizen. But he's not excited by Bernie Sanders. >for example, keep in mind that the internet is only 20 years old, as far as the public is concerned. I am 1000% behind the idea of changing the laws that govern intellectual property and internet access, but this is not an issue that's age-dependent. Few people in any age strata care or think about this because if their news sources have any vested interest, it's in keeping IP laws locked down as tightly as possible. You'll find near-universal praise for copyright among every age group, because the public is presented only one side of the copyright debate. Laws expanding IP rights and locking down tech access routinely pass with minimal debate or interest. The exception to this is the hacker subculture, where it's not really an age-dependent thing either. Some older persons involved in certain niche businesses may remember slightly-less-oppressive copyright regimes and want to go back to that. >Cut off the young, and you take away the meat of the progressives, and your society will stagnate. This is everyone else's complaint too, but it's begging the question. "Progressiveness" is not inherently correct. Social insistence on certain behavioral standards is good. We don't want to "progress" out of all of our values. >And if you want evidence that the old are just as susceptible to stupid politics, look to Fox News's target audience: the silver hair brigade. Or talkback radio. I know a lot of young people who are into Fox News and conservative talk radio. People consciously pick the news outlets that agree with them most often because it's more pleasant to listen to someone encourage your beliefs than discourage them. Conservative media is not specifically targeted at old people; it's targeted at all conservatives.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Well then, go vote. The reason old people get their way so much more is because they vote. I heard a young lady interviewed on the BBC this morning, talking about how young people felt betrayed because this choice was made by people who wouldn't feel the negative consequences. When the interviewer pointed out that a lot of young people didn't vote, she blamed the negative nature of the campaigns for that, rather than acknowledging that maybe if people want a certain outcome they should vote that way. It's the same situation in the US. The will of the people and the actions of the government don't line up all that well, and a lot of it is because young people don't vote. The government goes along with the will of the voters reasonably well. I'm sure you vote, but a lot of people like you just stay home. If you don't want your elders making all the decisions, convince your cohorts to go have their say.
fnovd 10y ago
What if your government voted for a lifetime stipend of $10000/month for everyone over 65, to be paid for by higher taxes on renters, students, and earners? I think there is a breaking point where it is unacceptable to support the wants of an aging population over the future of the young, even by majority vote. However, I don't think the Brexit falls into that category.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Here's the thing: old people don't vote for that kind of thing, at least not if they have children and grandchildren. They've invested decades of heavy personal sacrifice into building a future for their posterity. They're not going to counteract that lifelong goal and knowingly vote for something that will inflict real pain or hindrance on the generations they've parented. Personally I believe the elderly make much better decisions when voting precisely because they have something that gives their votes far-reaching meaning. Young voters care primarily about getting what they want in the moment; any other interest may be considered out of goodwill, but it is intanigble, whereas people with children and grandchildren truly care about the long-term well-being of the nation, because they know their posterity is going to be living in it, most likely for hundreds of years.
  - thomasahle 10y ago
    > elderly make much better decisions when voting precisely because they have something that gives their votes far-reaching meaning. Young voters care primarily about getting what they want in the moment. I'd be more positive about of future if this were the case. Do you have any examples of where this has happened? I always had the impression older people voted more conservatively, because they were tired of things changing, and mostly happy with their wealth and position in life.
  - makomk 10y ago
    Here's the thing: if you look at how the UK welfare system treats (say) the younger people who lose their jobs or suffer accidents or illness that stops them from working compared with how it treats the elderly, and pay attention to the politics behind it, or if you think about the emphasis on ensuring house price growth and who benefits, or... the comment you're replying to is an exaggeration of what already happens.
cookiecaper 10y ago
I agree with you, I hate seeing comments that are dismissive of those who actually have some experience under their belts and some personal history. You'd think that people who were living and capable of remembering a pre-EU UK would have a better perspective on this particular issue. My personal opinion is that voting age is too young in most countries. It should be upped to 30.
- lichform 10y ago
  But see this is the same issue, just in the opposite direction. I don't understand what relevance any of this identity politicking has to do with electorates. The idea of "One Person, One Vote" and that no one's vote is inherently more valuable that another's, irregardless of that person's gender, age, class, sexuality, mental ability or what have you. _Stupid_ people being able to vote is a feature. The young and inexperienced being able to vote is a feature. The crotchety old stubborn types being able to vote is a feature. None of these are bugs. The question of the hour is "What can we do to create a more informed, civically responsible public". To this end my honest belief is to encourage people to stop watching network television and reading editorialized, propaganda clickbait articles from partisan online sources (Your Brietbarts and Salons and Voxes and Gawkers).
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    I don't agree that allowing the young and inexperienced to vote is a feature. Inexperienced people make bad long-term decisions simply because they don't have the history to draw likely conclusions from. There's nothing wrong with that and there's nothing that can be done about it; it's simply a function of age, which no one can change. It seems accepted that a baseline amount of experience should be necessary, which is why we have a minimum voting age in the first place. I believe that the baseline is too low (and that it was intentionally lowered to more easily allow charlatans to acquire power). I agree that telecommunications, and especially television, have had a serious negative effect on the political discourse and that we need to devise a way to make people less vulnerable to them. Things were much different when you had to read someone's pamphlets and evaluate their proposals to decide if you supported them v. watching them wink at you on TV.

teh 10y ago

My rational brain agrees with you but I feel this decision was based on who shouted the most. I participated in some political online discussions (something I rarely do) in good faith and the responses I got were often uninformed (no idea what subsidiarity means, what the EU institutions are, the objectives of the Maastricht treaty, ..) and more often hostile ("fuck off you want us to give Germany another pounding?", "why aren't you grateful", "we have the most powerful army and sit on the UN Security Council", ...) After reading that for hours I came to the conclusion that these people are 1) stupid, and 2) arguing in bad faith. It was totally unlike a well paced engineering discussion. What's your plan for engaging in this kind of discourse? (I can link you to plenty of comments on HN right now that argue with words like "these people", "sickening", or say "The EU has no relevance to peace or war.")

Dr_tldr 10y ago
I suspect that if you went to a political site that was strongly catered towards the "stay" camp and took a "leave" position, the results would be about the same. The problem is that both sides exist in a self-reinforcing echo-chamber, but they both think that it's only the other side that's ignorant, conformist, and unreasonable. Arguing that the other side is wrong because there are stupid people who support that position for stupid reasons is implicitly arguing that there aren't any stupid people on your side. If you point to instances of people with idiotic opinions disagreeing with you but you ignore all the idiots who are on your side, you have a huge cognitive blindspot and cease to be credible except to other people with the same blindspot. For instance, your last sentence clearly shows your biases: you skipped over all the comments on this thread that are in the exact same tone, but share your opinion. In general, there is no point in discussing things with someone who is unable to summarize their opponent's position in terms that the opponent would agree are approximately correct. If you can't get to that point, that demonstrates there's not even enough common understanding to have an argument, since you don't even know what the other side is, or if the person you're talking to is a fair representative of it.

thomasahle 10y ago

Shock, Anger, Rejection, Acceptance. People just lost a lot of opportunity, unity and economic prospect. Let them be angry for a bit.

thrillgore 10y ago

It's the same with the Populism/Trump people and their counterparts in the US. Nobody wants to discuss a solution. Minds have been made up and if you don't agree with them, its all safe spaces, "neener neener neener cuck" and all that crap that goes with it. For a species that imbibed itself with the idea of the republic, we certainly like to squander that gift.