8 ms·

Let's face it, the only reason publications turned to Google Trends to show people Googling "What is the EU?" is because it fit the narrative they had out of th

Let's face it, the only reason publications turned to Google Trends to show people Googling "What is the EU?" is because it fit the narrative they had out of the gate. I see the good and bad of Brexit (I'd say "remain" has a stronger case if the EU would reform;) yet the more I read from the media, the more I've leaned pro-Brexit, just out of spite. Every article I've read treats those who were pro-Brexit as if they were complete idiots, as if their concerns aren't legitimate. Even if I disagree with someone's policy position doesn't mean I should completely ignore their concerns and write them off as a bunch of idiots. Absolutely infuriating to listen to and read. Maybe it's my imagination, but the media as a whole has gotten a lot more preachy within the past 6 months. The new trend seems to be "data journalism" in which most people omit numbers to the contrary of a certain world view (Vox literally has been getting a dataset from Reddit on 'mass shootings.' Even the NYTs and MotherJones called them out, to no avail. Not sure how people are letting them off the hook.) I honestly can connect more with those that were "Leave" on the E.U. now than in the beginning; simply because the media coverage has come off as so elitist.

x5n1 10y ago
Media is owned by corporations and the elite. They want freedom of movement, because cheaper labor to exploit and easier to move capital around to make more money. They also want one set of rules and laws and taxes. They also find it much easier to manipulate a single body than multiple bodies. If you want certain policies it's much more effective if you have to buy one government over many different governments. Elite, the few of them that there are, want one world government that allows them to dictate all the policies and tax the population for things like patents and copyright. They want more power and the way to get that is to get everything under one umbrella... or as few umbrellas as possible. It's easier for them to manage their interests that way than if they have to deal with multiple governments all of which represent potentially different power structures and groups.
- fma 10y ago
  Uhmm...I also want freedom of movement. If somewhere else is going to pay me more for the same job, I'm moving there.
  - x5n1 10y ago
    I do too, that's where elite interest and interest of modern workers converge and they use that to justify their policies. But often those policies are not good for the locals. Many immigrants do work harder than the locals. Which creates more competition and allows you to exploit the local population better in terms of offering them lower pay and longer hours and fewer benefits. Combine that with automation and you really have too much power in the situation.
  - jnem 10y ago
    If I recall correctly, you'd have to be at least a lvl 4 wizard to cast freedom of movement.
  - pixl97 10y ago
    Freedom of movement is great, unfortunately we live in a world with 7 billion people and it's likely a vast majority would move from where they are at if they could. 1.3 billion people make less than $1.25 a day. What do you think would happen if they could move somewhere else easily? Equality and economic parity is necessary without creating a humanitarian and environmental disaster of human movement.
marcoperaza 10y ago
The battle lines have shifted. It's now nationalism vs. globalism, not conservative vs. liberal. It turns out that the elite, while split between conservatism and liberalism, is firmly in the globalist camp. The people tend to go the other way, especially once the hollow veneer of political correctness is shattered (terrorist attacks, migrant crises, and economic downturns can do that). You're seeing it in Britain, where Brexit crossed party lines. The people were told they couldn't have a say on immigration or many other aspects of their lives. Britain's cultural identity, their nationhood, would just have to give way over time to a pan-European globalized society. They were told that high-minded technocrats in Brussels, not the British nation, should run their country. It turns out that the common people don't like that deal. You're seeing it in America. Trump is not running on a policy platform. He's signed up to enough conservative pieties to get the Republican Party behind him, but his whole campaign is really premised on kicking out the ruling elite and restoring government for the interests of the American people, not the establishment and their globalist agenda. Regardless of whether you agree that his policies will accomplish that, there's no denying that that's the core sentiment that he's tapping into. This is the quote that seems to be extremely popular among his supporters: "We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down." You're seeing it in continental Europe, with nationalist parties pulling supporters from both the establishment conservative and left-wing parties. Marine Le Pen's National Front has a very good chance of winning the election in France next year. Her platform isn't right-wing or left-wing, it's nationalist and seeks to preserve the culture of the French nation, including their social and economic model. Alternative for Germany (AfD) is gaining rapidly in reaction to the disastrous decision to allow migrants to flood into Germany. They have benefit in the polls at the expense of both the main left and right parties. The supporters of these movements are unified in one thing: a love for and desire to preserve their nation's culture and values, which they perceive to be under siege from uncontrolled immigration and globalization.
- bjacobel 10y ago
  "We just want to preserve our culture" is the loudest racial dog-whistle I know. It's been around since Jim Crow and it looks like it's not going away any time soon.
lkrubner 10y ago
About this: "Every article I've read treats those who were pro-Brexit as if they were complete idiots, as if their concerns aren't legitimate." You are using very strong language there, but it is important to remember that the pro-Brexit people were badly misinformed, and the concerns that drove them were completely illegitimate in a modern Western country. So it is entirely appropriate that the articles give that kind of treatment to the pro-Brexit crowd. Such articles are accurate and we should be grateful for their honesty and reporting.
- sievebrain 10y ago
  Congratulations on so powerfully proving his point: that the root cause of stupidity is a closed mind.
chimprich 10y ago
> the more I read from the media, the more I've leaned pro-Brexit, just out of spite How can you possibly use "spite" as a justification to make decisions about the next few decades of our future? Doing anything out of spite (Google definition: "a desire to hurt, annoy, or offend someone") is surely a bad idea for doing anything, let alone a decision of this magnitude, which needs careful consideration of the facts, not emotion. > I honestly can connect more with those that were "Leave" on the E.U. now than in the beginning; simply because the media coverage has come off as so elitist. "Elitist", being a request to listen to the experts, presumably; Nobel prize winning economists, the IMF, banks, businesses, the US government, the unions, major businesses, all the sane UK political parties, and so on. Yes, elitism is terrible. How could it have been presented differently to save your feelings? What is infuriating is that many (most?) people voted according to emotion rather than considering the evidence.
- potatoman2 10y ago
  I think you're discounting the spite vote.

x5n1 10y ago

Media is owned by corporations and the elite. They want freedom of movement, because cheaper labor to exploit and easier to move capital around to make more money. They also want one set of rules and laws and taxes. They also find it much easier to manipulate a single body than multiple bodies. If you want certain policies it's much more effective if you have to buy one government over many different governments. Elite, the few of them that there are, want one world government that allows them to dictate all the policies and tax the population for things like patents and copyright. They want more power and the way to get that is to get everything under one umbrella... or as few umbrellas as possible. It's easier for them to manage their interests that way than if they have to deal with multiple governments all of which represent potentially different power structures and groups.

fma 10y ago
Uhmm...I also want freedom of movement. If somewhere else is going to pay me more for the same job, I'm moving there.
- x5n1 10y ago
  I do too, that's where elite interest and interest of modern workers converge and they use that to justify their policies. But often those policies are not good for the locals. Many immigrants do work harder than the locals. Which creates more competition and allows you to exploit the local population better in terms of offering them lower pay and longer hours and fewer benefits. Combine that with automation and you really have too much power in the situation.
- jnem 10y ago
  If I recall correctly, you'd have to be at least a lvl 4 wizard to cast freedom of movement.
- pixl97 10y ago
  Freedom of movement is great, unfortunately we live in a world with 7 billion people and it's likely a vast majority would move from where they are at if they could. 1.3 billion people make less than $1.25 a day. What do you think would happen if they could move somewhere else easily? Equality and economic parity is necessary without creating a humanitarian and environmental disaster of human movement.

marcoperaza 10y ago

The battle lines have shifted. It's now nationalism vs. globalism, not conservative vs. liberal. It turns out that the elite, while split between conservatism and liberalism, is firmly in the globalist camp. The people tend to go the other way, especially once the hollow veneer of political correctness is shattered (terrorist attacks, migrant crises, and economic downturns can do that). You're seeing it in Britain, where Brexit crossed party lines. The people were told they couldn't have a say on immigration or many other aspects of their lives. Britain's cultural identity, their nationhood, would just have to give way over time to a pan-European globalized society. They were told that high-minded technocrats in Brussels, not the British nation, should run their country. It turns out that the common people don't like that deal. You're seeing it in America. Trump is not running on a policy platform. He's signed up to enough conservative pieties to get the Republican Party behind him, but his whole campaign is really premised on kicking out the ruling elite and restoring government for the interests of the American people, not the establishment and their globalist agenda. Regardless of whether you agree that his policies will accomplish that, there's no denying that that's the core sentiment that he's tapping into. This is the quote that seems to be extremely popular among his supporters: "We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down." You're seeing it in continental Europe, with nationalist parties pulling supporters from both the establishment conservative and left-wing parties. Marine Le Pen's National Front has a very good chance of winning the election in France next year. Her platform isn't right-wing or left-wing, it's nationalist and seeks to preserve the culture of the French nation, including their social and economic model. Alternative for Germany (AfD) is gaining rapidly in reaction to the disastrous decision to allow migrants to flood into Germany. They have benefit in the polls at the expense of both the main left and right parties. The supporters of these movements are unified in one thing: a love for and desire to preserve their nation's culture and values, which they perceive to be under siege from uncontrolled immigration and globalization.

bjacobel 10y ago
"We just want to preserve our culture" is the loudest racial dog-whistle I know. It's been around since Jim Crow and it looks like it's not going away any time soon.

lkrubner 10y ago

About this: "Every article I've read treats those who were pro-Brexit as if they were complete idiots, as if their concerns aren't legitimate." You are using very strong language there, but it is important to remember that the pro-Brexit people were badly misinformed, and the concerns that drove them were completely illegitimate in a modern Western country. So it is entirely appropriate that the articles give that kind of treatment to the pro-Brexit crowd. Such articles are accurate and we should be grateful for their honesty and reporting.

sievebrain 10y ago
Congratulations on so powerfully proving his point: that the root cause of stupidity is a closed mind.

chimprich 10y ago

> the more I read from the media, the more I've leaned pro-Brexit, just out of spite How can you possibly use "spite" as a justification to make decisions about the next few decades of our future? Doing anything out of spite (Google definition: "a desire to hurt, annoy, or offend someone") is surely a bad idea for doing anything, let alone a decision of this magnitude, which needs careful consideration of the facts, not emotion. > I honestly can connect more with those that were "Leave" on the E.U. now than in the beginning; simply because the media coverage has come off as so elitist. "Elitist", being a request to listen to the experts, presumably; Nobel prize winning economists, the IMF, banks, businesses, the US government, the unions, major businesses, all the sane UK political parties, and so on. Yes, elitism is terrible. How could it have been presented differently to save your feelings? What is infuriating is that many (most?) people voted according to emotion rather than considering the evidence.

potatoman2 10y ago
I think you're discounting the spite vote.