3 ms·

OK, maybe they know better and that's a fair point. Except that the reason they voted was wrapped into propaganda level of lies and misrepresentations. The camp

by gutnor 10y ago

OK, maybe they know better and that's a fair point. Except that the reason they voted was wrapped into propaganda level of lies and misrepresentations. The campaign on both side was so thin on facts and so big on lies that neither side really knew what they voted for. Historically, the people that are in power now are the same guys with the same ideas and the same interests than the one that have been screwing them in the last 30 years. The vote is just giving them an immediate boost in power. So they were mislead to follow the guy that has a consistent history of fucking them up. Maybe that's not technically directly voting against their own interests, but that does not look like the best decision one can take either. edit: Note that you could probably say the same for the city workers. The UK has a consistent history of boosting its power. People working in the City, long term, are probably better off with neoliberal politic: they are on the winning side of the balance.

sievebrain 10y ago
Your argument sounds clever but stands in direct contradiction with the data in the article. You argue that voters were misled and made a huge mistake because they didn't know what they were voting for, due to lies and misinformation, and thus voted against their own interests (not "technically" but in spirit). This is a summary of your argument. But the article cites polls showing that Leave voters were far more skeptical of politicians and far less likely to believe them than Remain voters: 81% distrust for Leave vs 67% for Remain. So given that you say both campaigns lied a lot, that would imply that Leave voters were less misled by propaganda and MORE likely to know what it was they were doing. Yet that does not appear to be the conclusion you have reached. Why not?
- gutnor 10y ago
  > So given that you say both campaigns lied a lot, that would imply that Leave voters were less misled by propaganda and MORE likely to know what it was they were doing. Believing that politician are lying to you does not make you informed, it makes you uninformed. For example, if you believe your GPS is not working, and you chose to follow its direction (or not), it does not mean you know the road, you are still picking at random. I conceded that it is the case of both sides. As I explained, the reason I believe the Leave voters voted against their best interest is not based on the Brexit campaign, it is based on who they put in charge by doing it. > Yet that does not appear to be the conclusion you have reached. Why not? Don't get me wrong, as I alluded before, I'm in a position to actually benefit from the Brexit. I believe that the Leave voters are going to get the shit end of the deal. I can believe they are informed as you suggest, or I can believe they were mislead. The difference is that I may vote against my interest for the later (eg: increase my taxes), but not for the former. As final note: better NHS, better social security, more money, more job opportunities, vibrant country side full of activity, ... The fact that I don't believe it will happen does not mean I don't want it to happen. I don't mind being proven wrong, even if that means being ridiculed every 23rd of June, or looking stupid when my kid ask me why I was Remain.

by gutnor 10y ago

sievebrain 10y ago

Your argument sounds clever but stands in direct contradiction with the data in the article. You argue that voters were misled and made a huge mistake because they didn't know what they were voting for, due to lies and misinformation, and thus voted against their own interests (not "technically" but in spirit). This is a summary of your argument. But the article cites polls showing that Leave voters were far more skeptical of politicians and far less likely to believe them than Remain voters: 81% distrust for Leave vs 67% for Remain. So given that you say both campaigns lied a lot, that would imply that Leave voters were less misled by propaganda and MORE likely to know what it was they were doing. Yet that does not appear to be the conclusion you have reached. Why not?

gutnor 10y ago
> So given that you say both campaigns lied a lot, that would imply that Leave voters were less misled by propaganda and MORE likely to know what it was they were doing. Believing that politician are lying to you does not make you informed, it makes you uninformed. For example, if you believe your GPS is not working, and you chose to follow its direction (or not), it does not mean you know the road, you are still picking at random. I conceded that it is the case of both sides. As I explained, the reason I believe the Leave voters voted against their best interest is not based on the Brexit campaign, it is based on who they put in charge by doing it. > Yet that does not appear to be the conclusion you have reached. Why not? Don't get me wrong, as I alluded before, I'm in a position to actually benefit from the Brexit. I believe that the Leave voters are going to get the shit end of the deal. I can believe they are informed as you suggest, or I can believe they were mislead. The difference is that I may vote against my interest for the later (eg: increase my taxes), but not for the former. As final note: better NHS, better social security, more money, more job opportunities, vibrant country side full of activity, ... The fact that I don't believe it will happen does not mean I don't want it to happen. I don't mind being proven wrong, even if that means being ridiculed every 23rd of June, or looking stupid when my kid ask me why I was Remain.