3 ms·

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

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.

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.