4 ms·

> where the wrong result was possible I'm sorry, but the will of the people is never "wrong"

by Chris2048 7y ago

gambiting 7y ago
It can be morally wrong, or financially wrong, or wrong in terms of human rights, or wrong for minorities. There's many types of "wrong". Just like you can make a "wrong" decision for yourself when having to choose between two options, the society can choose "wrongly" when presented with a simple yes/no question. There's a difference between that choice being invalid and wrong.
- Chris2048 7y ago
  I don't really get your distinction, how is morally wrong different from "wrong in terms of human rights"? Do you mean beneficial?
  - Chris2048 7y ago
    Clearly I've triggered someone who is systematically downvoting all my comments..
ben_w 7y ago
> I'm sorry, but the will of the people is never "wrong" The city I live in has gold-coloured plaques on the ground outside random homes memorialising all those who died because the people elected a dictator. Democracy is “least bad”, not “incapable of fault”.
- Chris2048 7y ago
  This is a vague use of the word "because" Those people died "because" the people elected someone, in the same sense they died "because" that persons mother gave birth to them. Did the dictatorial killing take place transparently within the rule of law?
  - ben_w 7y ago
    > Did the dictatorial killing take place transparently within the rule of law? Within the rule of law, yes — though the standards of international law were changed retrospectively after the event because of how obviously evil it was. Transparently? I’m not sure. What would your standard be for that? I’m not sure why you see your point as a relevant counter-argument though: the people voted, several minorities were systematically exterminated.
    - Chris2048 7y ago
      What dictator was it? My point is, a mother had a child, several minorities were systematically exterminated. It's the same dubious causal linking, unless the people directly voted to exterminate minorities.
      - ben_w 7y ago
        Someone who has by that point written a book saying that the minority he hated needed to exterminated and that the process would be bloody. I will not name him. Naming him serves no benefit, especially as I do not wish to conflate him with Leave, merely to demonstrate that democracies are capable of being wrong.
        Chris2048 7y ago
        But that means you are the only source of truth for your anecdote, so it doesn't demonstrate anything. Are you possibly trying to avoid invoking godwin's law?
        ben_w 7y ago
        If I were, would it be good or bad? Would it even matter at all? Remember the specific thrust of argument in this subthread isn’t to demonise Leave voters it’s just to demonstrate that it’s possible for democracy to give bad answers. Mentioning He Who Cannot Be Named isn’t going to help separate concerns here, rather the opposite.
- DanBC 7y ago
  >> The city I live in has gold-coloured plaques on the ground outside random homes memorialising all those who died because the people elected a dictator. Many people won't know about these. They're called "stolperstein" - "stumble stones". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolperstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolperstein > A Stolperstein (German pronunciation: [ˈʃtɔlpɐˌʃtaɪn]; plural Stolpersteine; literally "stumbling stone", metaphorically a "stumbling block") is a sett-size, 10 by 10 centimetres (3.9 in × 3.9 in) concrete cube bearing a brass plate inscribed with the name and life dates of victims of Nazi extermination or persecution. > The Stolpersteine project, initiated by the German artist Gunter Demnig in 1992, aims to commemorate individuals at exactly the last place of residency—or, sometimes, work—which was freely chosen by the person before he or she fell victim to Nazi terror, euthanasia, eugenics, deportation to a concentration or extermination camp, or escaped persecution by emigration or suicide. As of 23 October 2018, 70,000[1] Stolpersteine have been laid making the Stolpersteine project the world's largest decentralized memorial.[2][3] > The majority of Stolpersteine commemorate Jewish victims of the Holocaust.[4] Others have been placed for Sinti and Romani people (then also called "gypsies"), homosexuals, the physically or mentally disabled, Jehovah's Witnesses, black people, members of the Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party, and the anti-Nazi Resistance, the Christian opposition (both Protestants and Catholics), and Freemasons, along with International Brigade soldiers in the Spanish Civil War, military deserters, conscientious objectors, escape helpers, capitulators, "habitual criminals", looters, and others charged with treason, military disobedience, or undermining the Nazi military, as well as Allied soldiers.
barrynuts1990 7y ago
Even that term "will of the people" is a kind of assault on rationality. It was a vote at one time, once, 4 years ago, with a 2% victory. The "will of the people" excludes all desires and agency from 15m+ people, who did not want this, in a civilised society subsuming those people to be "wrong" or to be ignored is a recipe for some deeply unpleasant and authoritarian thinking. Also, 17 million people elected Hitler in 1933 in Germany, that did not make it "right". Dangerous times.
- Chris2048 7y ago
  > It was a vote at one time, once, 4 years ago, with a 2% victory What criteria should I cherry pick in order to invalidate a result? Can I apply the same logic the the one that added the UK to the EU? > in a civilised society subsuming those people to be "wrong" or to be ignored is a recipe for some deeply unpleasant and authoritarian thinking I didn't describe remainers as "wrong", I responded to a comment describing leavers as "wrong". However, as to "ignored" - why not? I'm sure it's unpleasant to lose a democratic vote, but its not "authoritarian". > Also, 17 million people elected Hitler in 1933 in Germany, that did not make it "right" Make what right? That they elected him? or that he became chancellor? Conflating brexit with Nazi elections is what I consider truly "dangerous". Many things happened after that election that contributed to the rise of Hitler.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    > Can I apply the same logic the the one that added the UK to the EU? Yes, and you must — otherwise the vote to leave isn’t legit in the first place. > I didn't describe remainers as "wrong", I responded to a comment describing leavers as "wrong". What I wrote was “…only an idiot would hold a referendum on something important where the wrong result was possible” [added emphasis]. That’s not leavers being wrong, that’s leave being wrong. Politically, it was the wrong move for the PM and you can tell by him resigning immediately. I think that alone is sufficient to call him an idiot for having called the referendum, which is what I was doing. Him and his successors being idiots is the main reason why I think this is going to be much, much worse for the UK, not the mere fact of leaving the EU, the departure from which is something I estimate to be a “economically bad but if you want it that’s your call”.

> where the wrong result was possible I'm sorry, but the will of the people is never "wrong"

It can be morally wrong, or financially wrong, or wrong in terms of human rights, or wrong for minorities. There's many types of "wrong". Just like you can make a "wrong" decision for yourself when having to choose between two options, the society can choose "wrongly" when presented with a simple yes/no question. There's a difference between that choice being invalid and wrong.

Chris2048 7y ago
I don't really get your distinction, how is morally wrong different from "wrong in terms of human rights"? Do you mean beneficial?
- Chris2048 7y ago
  Clearly I've triggered someone who is systematically downvoting all my comments..

ben_w 7y ago

> I'm sorry, but the will of the people is never "wrong" The city I live in has gold-coloured plaques on the ground outside random homes memorialising all those who died because the people elected a dictator. Democracy is “least bad”, not “incapable of fault”.

Chris2048 7y ago
This is a vague use of the word "because" Those people died "because" the people elected someone, in the same sense they died "because" that persons mother gave birth to them. Did the dictatorial killing take place transparently within the rule of law?
- ben_w 7y ago
  > Did the dictatorial killing take place transparently within the rule of law? Within the rule of law, yes — though the standards of international law were changed retrospectively after the event because of how obviously evil it was. Transparently? I’m not sure. What would your standard be for that? I’m not sure why you see your point as a relevant counter-argument though: the people voted, several minorities were systematically exterminated.
  - Chris2048 7y ago
    What dictator was it? My point is, a mother had a child, several minorities were systematically exterminated. It's the same dubious causal linking, unless the people directly voted to exterminate minorities.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      Someone who has by that point written a book saying that the minority he hated needed to exterminated and that the process would be bloody. I will not name him. Naming him serves no benefit, especially as I do not wish to conflate him with Leave, merely to demonstrate that democracies are capable of being wrong.
      - Chris2048 7y ago
        But that means you are the only source of truth for your anecdote, so it doesn't demonstrate anything. Are you possibly trying to avoid invoking godwin's law?
        ben_w 7y ago
        If I were, would it be good or bad? Would it even matter at all? Remember the specific thrust of argument in this subthread isn’t to demonise Leave voters it’s just to demonstrate that it’s possible for democracy to give bad answers. Mentioning He Who Cannot Be Named isn’t going to help separate concerns here, rather the opposite.
DanBC 7y ago
>> The city I live in has gold-coloured plaques on the ground outside random homes memorialising all those who died because the people elected a dictator. Many people won't know about these. They're called "stolperstein" - "stumble stones". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolperstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolperstein > A Stolperstein (German pronunciation: [ˈʃtɔlpɐˌʃtaɪn]; plural Stolpersteine; literally "stumbling stone", metaphorically a "stumbling block") is a sett-size, 10 by 10 centimetres (3.9 in × 3.9 in) concrete cube bearing a brass plate inscribed with the name and life dates of victims of Nazi extermination or persecution. > The Stolpersteine project, initiated by the German artist Gunter Demnig in 1992, aims to commemorate individuals at exactly the last place of residency—or, sometimes, work—which was freely chosen by the person before he or she fell victim to Nazi terror, euthanasia, eugenics, deportation to a concentration or extermination camp, or escaped persecution by emigration or suicide. As of 23 October 2018, 70,000[1] Stolpersteine have been laid making the Stolpersteine project the world's largest decentralized memorial.[2][3] > The majority of Stolpersteine commemorate Jewish victims of the Holocaust.[4] Others have been placed for Sinti and Romani people (then also called "gypsies"), homosexuals, the physically or mentally disabled, Jehovah's Witnesses, black people, members of the Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party, and the anti-Nazi Resistance, the Christian opposition (both Protestants and Catholics), and Freemasons, along with International Brigade soldiers in the Spanish Civil War, military deserters, conscientious objectors, escape helpers, capitulators, "habitual criminals", looters, and others charged with treason, military disobedience, or undermining the Nazi military, as well as Allied soldiers.

barrynuts1990 7y ago

Even that term "will of the people" is a kind of assault on rationality. It was a vote at one time, once, 4 years ago, with a 2% victory. The "will of the people" excludes all desires and agency from 15m+ people, who did not want this, in a civilised society subsuming those people to be "wrong" or to be ignored is a recipe for some deeply unpleasant and authoritarian thinking. Also, 17 million people elected Hitler in 1933 in Germany, that did not make it "right". Dangerous times.

Chris2048 7y ago
> It was a vote at one time, once, 4 years ago, with a 2% victory What criteria should I cherry pick in order to invalidate a result? Can I apply the same logic the the one that added the UK to the EU? > in a civilised society subsuming those people to be "wrong" or to be ignored is a recipe for some deeply unpleasant and authoritarian thinking I didn't describe remainers as "wrong", I responded to a comment describing leavers as "wrong". However, as to "ignored" - why not? I'm sure it's unpleasant to lose a democratic vote, but its not "authoritarian". > Also, 17 million people elected Hitler in 1933 in Germany, that did not make it "right" Make what right? That they elected him? or that he became chancellor? Conflating brexit with Nazi elections is what I consider truly "dangerous". Many things happened after that election that contributed to the rise of Hitler.
- ben_w 7y ago
  > Can I apply the same logic the the one that added the UK to the EU? Yes, and you must — otherwise the vote to leave isn’t legit in the first place. > I didn't describe remainers as "wrong", I responded to a comment describing leavers as "wrong". What I wrote was “…only an idiot would hold a referendum on something important where the wrong result was possible” [added emphasis]. That’s not leavers being wrong, that’s leave being wrong. Politically, it was the wrong move for the PM and you can tell by him resigning immediately. I think that alone is sufficient to call him an idiot for having called the referendum, which is what I was doing. Him and his successors being idiots is the main reason why I think this is going to be much, much worse for the UK, not the mere fact of leaving the EU, the departure from which is something I estimate to be a “economically bad but if you want it that’s your call”.