5 ms·

I get it’s UK and may be the most influential western country in the last 200-300 years. But time goes on, countries evolve and often they do so in unexpected w

I get it’s UK and may be the most influential western country in the last 200-300 years. But time goes on, countries evolve and often they do so in unexpected ways. My argument is that, at some point we must detach a country from its past (whatever that means) and accept the direction its constituents are now wanting to take. Even if we personally don’t approve of said direction.

ledauphin 5y ago
I don't think "we" must do anything of the sort. It's important to continue to disagree with things, and articulate the reasons why, even if a majority of some other group supports them.
- seanhandley 5y ago
  > It's important to continue to disagree with things No, it isn't.
decremental 5y ago
Except it's not an evolution. There's nothing organic taking place. It's a concerted, top-down effort to manipulate and coerce populations into going along with things that are expressly against their own freedoms and interests by people who are by any standard their enemies.
- Radim 5y ago
  > a concerted, top-down effort to manipulate and coerce [others] into going along with things [I want]. How is that outside of evolution? Your definition of "organic" seems suspect.
  - decremental 5y ago
    If tomorrow the government commanded that the color blue is now to be called red, that would not be an evolution of language. It would not be language evolving organically as language does over time. It would be change by force outside of the way things change naturally on their own.
    - Radim 5y ago
      > outside of the way things change naturally on their own. "Naturally on their own", you say? It sounds like you consider humans outside of forces of nature, outside of evolution. Are you a theist perhaps? I'm trying to understand your position, because to me humans and human relationships and human societies and human actions seem (obviously) a part of nature. They're complex systems, yes, but there's nothing inorganic or unnatural or magical about them. The same rules of biology and physics apply as everywhere else. And yes, coercing others to capture more resources for self seems a prototypical example of a (co-)evolutionary arms race.
      - decremental 5y ago
        I feel like I'm debating someone who is intentionally acting obtuse. I think you know what I'm saying and understand perfectly well what my position is here. Trying to shoehorn religion (something I'm sure you abhore) into this says a lot about the disingenuous nature of your motivation in this discussion. This would be more fruitful if you would just be candid with your own opinions instead affecting a passive aggressive attitude. Let's agree to disagree.
        Radim 5y ago
        I explained my position and explicitly said I'm trying to understand yours – claiming a textbook example of evolution is not evolution is just weird. You come back with ad-hominems. And then add new wrong assumptions into the mix – why should I abhore religion? You can do better.
        clejack 5y ago
        If the original comment said 'it would not be language evolving [normally]...' As opposed to 'organically' would you still have an issue understanding? Assume here that normal is a linguistic approximation to the mathematical idea of arithmetic mean. It could also be replaced with the word typically. In this context, your notion of a top down demand that blue means red or vice versa, is not 'organic' evolution, it's guided. Closer to the dog than the wolf.
- sacrosancty 5y ago
  It's not top-down. People vote for this stuff, so I agree it's organic. Politicians reflect the culture of the people they represent. That's their job and they will be fired if they don't respect it. It's actually kind of amazing how free the internet is compared to TV and radio. Nobody seems to be worried that you can't broadcast such offensive things on those traditional media. Why should the internet be a special free-speech zone when it can have the same reach as them? Not saying I agree with it, but that could be the common feeling among British voters.

ledauphin 5y ago

I don't think "we" must do anything of the sort. It's important to continue to disagree with things, and articulate the reasons why, even if a majority of some other group supports them.

seanhandley 5y ago
> It's important to continue to disagree with things No, it isn't.

decremental 5y ago

Except it's not an evolution. There's nothing organic taking place. It's a concerted, top-down effort to manipulate and coerce populations into going along with things that are expressly against their own freedoms and interests by people who are by any standard their enemies.

Radim 5y ago
> a concerted, top-down effort to manipulate and coerce [others] into going along with things [I want]. How is that outside of evolution? Your definition of "organic" seems suspect.
- decremental 5y ago
  If tomorrow the government commanded that the color blue is now to be called red, that would not be an evolution of language. It would not be language evolving organically as language does over time. It would be change by force outside of the way things change naturally on their own.
  - Radim 5y ago
    > outside of the way things change naturally on their own. "Naturally on their own", you say? It sounds like you consider humans outside of forces of nature, outside of evolution. Are you a theist perhaps? I'm trying to understand your position, because to me humans and human relationships and human societies and human actions seem (obviously) a part of nature. They're complex systems, yes, but there's nothing inorganic or unnatural or magical about them. The same rules of biology and physics apply as everywhere else. And yes, coercing others to capture more resources for self seems a prototypical example of a (co-)evolutionary arms race.
    - decremental 5y ago
      I feel like I'm debating someone who is intentionally acting obtuse. I think you know what I'm saying and understand perfectly well what my position is here. Trying to shoehorn religion (something I'm sure you abhore) into this says a lot about the disingenuous nature of your motivation in this discussion. This would be more fruitful if you would just be candid with your own opinions instead affecting a passive aggressive attitude. Let's agree to disagree.
      - Radim 5y ago
        I explained my position and explicitly said I'm trying to understand yours – claiming a textbook example of evolution is not evolution is just weird. You come back with ad-hominems. And then add new wrong assumptions into the mix – why should I abhore religion? You can do better.
        clejack 5y ago
        If the original comment said 'it would not be language evolving [normally]...' As opposed to 'organically' would you still have an issue understanding? Assume here that normal is a linguistic approximation to the mathematical idea of arithmetic mean. It could also be replaced with the word typically. In this context, your notion of a top down demand that blue means red or vice versa, is not 'organic' evolution, it's guided. Closer to the dog than the wolf.
sacrosancty 5y ago
It's not top-down. People vote for this stuff, so I agree it's organic. Politicians reflect the culture of the people they represent. That's their job and they will be fired if they don't respect it. It's actually kind of amazing how free the internet is compared to TV and radio. Nobody seems to be worried that you can't broadcast such offensive things on those traditional media. Why should the internet be a special free-speech zone when it can have the same reach as them? Not saying I agree with it, but that could be the common feeling among British voters.