Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The posts in the Media Reach thread got me thinking about perceptions (and our self perceptions) on what is left-centre-right. It is clear that our own position on that spectrum influences where we think the centre line is drawn. I see people telling others what they are regularly. I have to wonder what criteria people on here use to come to those conclusions? For me the centre (or a centrist) is a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. They are willing to take and support both socialist and capitalist ideas. To me it seems discussion has become so binary and tribalist that many only now see left or right and cannot seem to accept that some people straddle that line. Clearly there will be a sub spectrum with the “centrist territory” with centre/left and centre/right. Some of us have completed that online test (sorry cannot remember name right now) which was interesting but as something clearly developed through an American lens, it isn’t fully reflective of the UK. In my mind the spectrum is this -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 With the centre ground being -2 to +2 Communism -10 Fascism +10 Everything else in between (not going to type it out). So what defines a centrist for you? What policies would they advocate that labels them centrist rather than left or right? Is there a tolerance (ie some centrist will have more left than right policies and vice versa) or do they have to all be totally consistent (and only therefore be “0” on that scale?) " I've just got home and that's too much to wrapped my head round right now. But... For me a centrist would be someone who would be looking at the good parts of both socialist and capitalist policies and agreeing with them. I know I'm definitely right on some things and definitely left on others. I'm not a Tory, nor am I a Labour voter. So I'll class myself as a centrist, my test said I'm centre-left. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Unhelpful post alert: I have no idea. I'm unsure what makes one more left or righter than another, let alone how to draw a scale. And I suspect a simple 1d scale doesn't work in a complex world. I started with "working man" v "rich man",... But that's probably a simple view of UK politics. And as per the media thread, the sun is probably working class and right. I then debated whether "left" is for the people or protection of the low-powered. Conservatism seems to be more about less rules. Is that a measure of left v right? But then the right looks very rule-based on things like immigration and drugs. I end up thinking that labelling is lazy, especially as a way of dismissing someone. At the end of the day, all that matters is I'm labelled right, and anyone who disagreed is wrong "Good post actually. And thought provoking. You are correct that 2D is too blunt a scale but it would require more than a short post in a forum to explore fully. I think rich v poor is sometimes, but certainly not always, an indicator of right v left. Similarly conservatism is, as it says, supposedly focused on conserving the situation that has helped create their wealth and perpetuating inequality and therefore more attractive to people who have accumulated wealth. Conversely socialism tends to be focused around the redistribution of wealth to create a more equitable society. Which sounds nice to the have nots but is anathema to the haves. As the majority of people fall into the “poorer” end of the wealth spectrum, you could assume more people would support socialism or left wing ideas. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The posts in the Media Reach thread got me thinking about perceptions (and our self perceptions) on what is left-centre-right. It is clear that our own position on that spectrum influences where we think the centre line is drawn. I see people telling others what they are regularly. I have to wonder what criteria people on here use to come to those conclusions? For me the centre (or a centrist) is a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. They are willing to take and support both socialist and capitalist ideas. To me it seems discussion has become so binary and tribalist that many only now see left or right and cannot seem to accept that some people straddle that line. Clearly there will be a sub spectrum with the “centrist territory” with centre/left and centre/right. Some of us have completed that online test (sorry cannot remember name right now) which was interesting but as something clearly developed through an American lens, it isn’t fully reflective of the UK. In my mind the spectrum is this -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 With the centre ground being -2 to +2 Communism -10 Fascism +10 Everything else in between (not going to type it out). So what defines a centrist for you? What policies would they advocate that labels them centrist rather than left or right? Is there a tolerance (ie some centrist will have more left than right policies and vice versa) or do they have to all be totally consistent (and only therefore be “0” on that scale?) I've just got home and that's too much to wrapped my head round right now. But... For me a centrist would be someone who would be looking at the good parts of both socialist and capitalist policies and agreeing with them. I know I'm definitely right on some things and definitely left on others. I'm not a Tory, nor am I a Labour voter. So I'll class myself as a centrist, my test said I'm centre-left." In THAT test I too was Centre-Left but a bit further left than I expected. However, I do maintain THAT test is USA focused and that skews some of the answers (such as views on abortion and capital punishment). ALSO there is the swinger factor as people who swing are by their nature more liberal (small L) in attitude towards things like extramarital sex and that also skews the answers in THAT test. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The posts in the Media Reach thread got me thinking about perceptions (and our self perceptions) on what is left-centre-right. It is clear that our own position on that spectrum influences where we think the centre line is drawn. I see people telling others what they are regularly. I have to wonder what criteria people on here use to come to those conclusions? For me the centre (or a centrist) is a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. They are willing to take and support both socialist and capitalist ideas. To me it seems discussion has become so binary and tribalist that many only now see left or right and cannot seem to accept that some people straddle that line. Clearly there will be a sub spectrum with the “centrist territory” with centre/left and centre/right. Some of us have completed that online test (sorry cannot remember name right now) which was interesting but as something clearly developed through an American lens, it isn’t fully reflective of the UK. In my mind the spectrum is this -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 With the centre ground being -2 to +2 Communism -10 Fascism +10 Everything else in between (not going to type it out). So what defines a centrist for you? What policies would they advocate that labels them centrist rather than left or right? Is there a tolerance (ie some centrist will have more left than right policies and vice versa) or do they have to all be totally consistent (and only therefore be “0” on that scale?) I've just got home and that's too much to wrapped my head round right now. But... For me a centrist would be someone who would be looking at the good parts of both socialist and capitalist policies and agreeing with them. I know I'm definitely right on some things and definitely left on others. I'm not a Tory, nor am I a Labour voter. So I'll class myself as a centrist, my test said I'm centre-left. In THAT test I too was Centre-Left but a bit further left than I expected. However, I do maintain THAT test is USA focused and that skews some of the answers (such as views on abortion and capital punishment). ALSO there is the swinger factor as people who swing are by their nature more liberal (small L) in attitude towards things like extramarital sex and that also skews the answers in THAT test." I do agree that the test is skewed because its clearly a US based judging by the questions on abortion etc. I also agree that the majority people (not all judging by some things I read) on this site would be more liberal towards sexual attitudes. Those things would skew the results towards the left in my opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days." I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking." Are they not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days." That's definitely not true, is it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not?" No they're not | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not" Wow...I'd like to hear your definatution of Right Wing Policy groups on this island. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Wow...I'd like to hear your definatution of Right Wing Policy groups on this island." Right wing or Far Right? He said they weren't Far Right, not Right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"UKIP’s immigration policy (last updated 2022) is definitely far-right." Delving deeper into UKIP’s ‘living manifesto’ I’m more convinced than ever that it’s parody. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Wow...I'd like to hear your definatution of Right Wing Policy groups on this island. Right wing or Far Right? He said they weren't Far Right, not Right. " They are nationally recognised as far right political parties. Obviously those not thinking they are far right and centrist right only proves my point. If you are referring to extremist right parties then you would be referring to National Socalist parties, certain religious groups etc. Personally I see no difference between the politics of Ukip and the BNP other than an accent and monitory funding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking." Which UK parties are further to the right of these? None I can think of. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Wow...I'd like to hear your definatution of Right Wing Policy groups on this island. Right wing or Far Right? He said they weren't Far Right, not Right. They are nationally recognised as far right political parties. Obviously those not thinking they are far right and centrist right only proves my point. If you are referring to extremist right parties then you would be referring to National Socalist parties, certain religious groups etc. Personally I see no difference between the politics of Ukip and the BNP other than an accent and monitory funding." Nationally recognised by who? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Unhelpful post alert: I have no idea. I'm unsure what makes one more left or righter than another, let alone how to draw a scale. And I suspect a simple 1d scale doesn't work in a complex world. I started with "working man" v "rich man",... But that's probably a simple view of UK politics. And as per the media thread, the sun is probably working class and right. I then debated whether "left" is for the people or protection of the low-powered. Conservatism seems to be more about less rules. Is that a measure of left v right? But then the right looks very rule-based on things like immigration and drugs. I end up thinking that labelling is lazy, especially as a way of dismissing someone. At the end of the day, all that matters is I'm labelled right, and anyone who disagreed is wrong
Good post actually. And thought provoking. You are correct that 2D is too blunt a scale but it would require more than a short post in a forum to explore fully.
I think rich v poor is sometimes, but certainly not always, an indicator of right v left. Similarly conservatism is, as it says, supposedly focused on conserving the situation that has helped create their wealth and perpetuating inequality and therefore more attractive to people who have accumulated wealth. Conversely socialism tends to be focused around the redistribution of wealth to create a more equitable society. Which sounds nice to the have nots but is anathema to the haves.
As the majority of people fall into the “poorer” end of the wealth spectrum, you could assume more people would support socialism or left wing ideas. But that doesn’t seem to be the case."Is the definition of conservative really conserving the current situation? I was thinking it's more to do with fiscal policy but possibly not. I have heard before that conservative governments tend to be about small governments with minimum state interference. Labour governments tend to be bigger with more state control. It was quite a while ago so may no longer be true | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The posts in the Media Reach thread got me thinking about perceptions (and our self perceptions) on what is left-centre-right. It is clear that our own position on that spectrum influences where we think the centre line is drawn. I see people telling others what they are regularly. I have to wonder what criteria people on here use to come to those conclusions? For me the centre (or a centrist) is a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. They are willing to take and support both socialist and capitalist ideas. To me it seems discussion has become so binary and tribalist that many only now see left or right and cannot seem to accept that some people straddle that line. Clearly there will be a sub spectrum with the “centrist territory” with centre/left and centre/right. Some of us have completed that online test (sorry cannot remember name right now) which was interesting but as something clearly developed through an American lens, it isn’t fully reflective of the UK. In my mind the spectrum is this -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 With the centre ground being -2 to +2 Communism -10 Fascism +10 Everything else in between (not going to type it out). So what defines a centrist for you? What policies would they advocate that labels them centrist rather than left or right? Is there a tolerance (ie some centrist will have more left than right policies and vice versa) or do they have to all be totally consistent (and only therefore be “0” on that scale?) " I think 0 on your scale, in a UK context, is Tony Blair's 'Mondeo Man' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The political compass test, while not perfect, does a fairly good job in grouping people. There are definitely two axis here. The social and the economic. When I took the test, I got a result very close to the centre - 0.1 to the right on economy and 0.1 to the liberal side on social axis. On the economic side, I believe free markets are the best way to run an economy. I also support social healthcare and reasonable regulations. On the social side, I believe in personal freedom but the society as a whole should nudge people to make healthy choices. I believe that a strong family structure makes a healthy society but it shouldn't be forced at the same time. I believe in freedom of speech. I am also strictly against identity politics. Given the mix of these choices, I think it's fair that the political compass test placed me at the centre." You sound pretty centrist to me! The problem with the political compass test (if we are talking about the same one) is, as discussed by Feisty and me above, that it is American centric. We need something that better reflects the UK (I have just looked and there may be some so I will try them). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not" Where would you place them on that -10 to +10 scale? Bearing in mind that I have said +10 is Fascist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Wow...I'd like to hear your definatution of Right Wing Policy groups on this island." Well given many political science majors and authors say far right velieve They are a superior race Deserve better rights than other races. Prefer hierarchy Believe in elitism Fundamentally against immigration particular other religions and creed and colour. Which of these are in your mind in the manifestos under farage ukipnparty or the brexit party or you feel farage has espoused? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Wow...I'd like to hear your definatution of Right Wing Policy groups on this island. Right wing or Far Right? He said they weren't Far Right, not Right. " The problem is any one right of centre is now far right. And that's why this person had made that mistake. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Wow...I'd like to hear your definatution of Right Wing Policy groups on this island. Right wing or Far Right? He said they weren't Far Right, not Right. They are nationally recognised as far right political parties. Obviously those not thinking they are far right and centrist right only proves my point. If you are referring to extremist right parties then you would be referring to National Socalist parties, certain religious groups etc. Personally I see no difference between the politics of Ukip and the BNP other than an accent and monitory funding." Specifically which part of their manifestos are far right in the context of political science. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Where would you place them on that -10 to +10 scale? Bearing in mind that I have said +10 is Fascist." If 10 is fascist e.g nazi( but they were actually left wing) And -10 is chairman mao Ignoring genocide. Because then pretty much every party would be 0 I'd put ukip at about 5 or 6. I'd put the current conservatives 1 or 2 I'd put thatchers gov about 6 or 7 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Where would you place them on that -10 to +10 scale? Bearing in mind that I have said +10 is Fascist. If 10 is fascist e.g nazi( but they were actually left wing) And -10 is chairman mao Ignoring genocide. Because then pretty much every party would be 0 I'd put ukip at about 5 or 6. I'd put the current conservatives 1 or 2 I'd put thatchers gov about 6 or 7" This old chestnut! "If 10 is fascist e.g nazi( but they were actually left wing)". Specifically which part of their manifestos are far right in the context of political science? Or are you parroting the utter bollocks that because the translation of the word "socialist" is in their name, that it trumps their actual politics and policies? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Where would you place them on that -10 to +10 scale? Bearing in mind that I have said +10 is Fascist. If 10 is fascist e.g nazi( but they were actually left wing) And -10 is chairman mao Ignoring genocide. Because then pretty much every party would be 0 I'd put ukip at about 5 or 6. I'd put the current conservatives 1 or 2 I'd put thatchers gov about 6 or 7" Very interesting to see how you view things and assign a scoring on that scale. Just as you have said left wingers have skewed views over what is right wing, your results show a skew in the other direction due to you being more right wing than you realise. BTW saying the Nazis were left wing is complete nonsense. It is based on a completely debunked theory propagated by right wing thinkers who wanted to distance themselves from the Nazi atrocities. At it’s most inane level supporters of that theory point to the word “Socialist” in the NAZI title. This demonstrates a total misunderstanding around how the Nazis operated as it was purely appropriation of the word to appeal to the working classes. It was branding. Another factor proponents of “the Nazis are left wing” theory was how they exerted control over various industrial sectors (and trying to equate that with state ownership) ignoring Hitler’s intention to significantly militarise in preparation for the inevitable war(s) that would happen in response to German expansion. I am rather shocked a smart guy like you Morely has fallen for that complete fallacy! It is squarely in the conspiracy theory territory you often disparage.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The posts in the Media Reach thread got me thinking about perceptions (and our self perceptions) on what is left-centre-right. It is clear that our own position on that spectrum influences where we think the centre line is drawn. I see people telling others what they are regularly. I have to wonder what criteria people on here use to come to those conclusions? For me the centre (or a centrist) is a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. They are willing to take and support both socialist and capitalist ideas. To me it seems discussion has become so binary and tribalist that many only now see left or right and cannot seem to accept that some people straddle that line. Clearly there will be a sub spectrum with the “centrist territory” with centre/left and centre/right. Some of us have completed that online test (sorry cannot remember name right now) which was interesting but as something clearly developed through an American lens, it isn’t fully reflective of the UK. In my mind the spectrum is this -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 With the centre ground being -2 to +2 Communism -10 Fascism +10 Everything else in between (not going to type it out). So what defines a centrist for you? What policies would they advocate that labels them centrist rather than left or right? Is there a tolerance (ie some centrist will have more left than right policies and vice versa) or do they have to all be totally consistent (and only therefore be “0” on that scale?) " This is great idea and all but it forgets a lot of what politics is and comes from a flawed base perspective. C | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Where would you place them on that -10 to +10 scale? Bearing in mind that I have said +10 is Fascist. If 10 is fascist e.g nazi( but they were actually left wing) And -10 is chairman mao Ignoring genocide. Because then pretty much every party would be 0 I'd put ukip at about 5 or 6. I'd put the current conservatives 1 or 2 I'd put thatchers gov about 6 or 7" In the political compass scale, the Nazis were socially authoritarian but economically centrist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Where would you place them on that -10 to +10 scale? Bearing in mind that I have said +10 is Fascist. If 10 is fascist e.g nazi( but they were actually left wing) And -10 is chairman mao Ignoring genocide. Because then pretty much every party would be 0 I'd put ukip at about 5 or 6. I'd put the current conservatives 1 or 2 I'd put thatchers gov about 6 or 7 Very interesting to see how you view things and assign a scoring on that scale. Just as you have said left wingers have skewed views over what is right wing, your results show a skew in the other direction due to you being more right wing than you realise. BTW saying the Nazis were left wing is complete nonsense. It is based on a completely debunked theory propagated by right wing thinkers who wanted to distance themselves from the Nazi atrocities. At it’s most inane level supporters of that theory point to the word “Socialist” in the NAZI title. This demonstrates a total misunderstanding around how the Nazis operated as it was purely appropriation of the word to appeal to the working classes. It was branding. Another factor proponents of “the Nazis are left wing” theory was how they exerted control over various industrial sectors (and trying to equate that with state ownership) ignoring Hitler’s intention to significantly militarise in preparation for the inevitable war(s) that would happen in response to German expansion. I am rather shocked a smart guy like you Morely has fallen for that complete fallacy! It is squarely in the conspiracy theory territory you often disparage. "No it's not its never been debunked look at their socialist policies. 
Look how they came to power. Look what they enacted when in power.
Economically and socially they were actually very left wing.
Denialism is what goes on with the left ton this part.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Where would you place them on that -10 to +10 scale? Bearing in mind that I have said +10 is Fascist. If 10 is fascist e.g nazi( but they were actually left wing) And -10 is chairman mao Ignoring genocide. Because then pretty much every party would be 0 I'd put ukip at about 5 or 6. I'd put the current conservatives 1 or 2 I'd put thatchers gov about 6 or 7 Very interesting to see how you view things and assign a scoring on that scale. Just as you have said left wingers have skewed views over what is right wing, your results show a skew in the other direction due to you being more right wing than you realise. BTW saying the Nazis were left wing is complete nonsense. It is based on a completely debunked theory propagated by right wing thinkers who wanted to distance themselves from the Nazi atrocities. At it’s most inane level supporters of that theory point to the word “Socialist” in the NAZI title. This demonstrates a total misunderstanding around how the Nazis operated as it was purely appropriation of the word to appeal to the working classes. It was branding. Another factor proponents of “the Nazis are left wing” theory was how they exerted control over various industrial sectors (and trying to equate that with state ownership) ignoring Hitler’s intention to significantly militarise in preparation for the inevitable war(s) that would happen in response to German expansion. I am rather shocked a smart guy like you Morely has fallen for that complete fallacy! It is squarely in the conspiracy theory territory you often disparage.
No it's not its never been debunked look at their socialist policies.
Look how they came to power. Look what they enacted when in power.
Economically and socially they were actually very left wing.
Denialism is what goes on with the left ton this part.
"Have you actuslly ever looked at the policies the nazi party undertook when in power. Or have you just heard a blog say they had socialist in their name but that's about it other than that they were right wing. Because I've got some bad fucking news for you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The posts in the Media Reach thread got me thinking about perceptions (and our self perceptions) on what is left-centre-right. It is clear that our own position on that spectrum influences where we think the centre line is drawn. I see people telling others what they are regularly. I have to wonder what criteria people on here use to come to those conclusions? For me the centre (or a centrist) is a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. They are willing to take and support both socialist and capitalist ideas. To me it seems discussion has become so binary and tribalist that many only now see left or right and cannot seem to accept that some people straddle that line. Clearly there will be a sub spectrum with the “centrist territory” with centre/left and centre/right. Some of us have completed that online test (sorry cannot remember name right now) which was interesting but as something clearly developed through an American lens, it isn’t fully reflective of the UK. In my mind the spectrum is this -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 With the centre ground being -2 to +2 Communism -10 Fascism +10 Everything else in between (not going to type it out). So what defines a centrist for you? What policies would they advocate that labels them centrist rather than left or right? Is there a tolerance (ie some centrist will have more left than right policies and vice versa) or do they have to all be totally consistent (and only therefore be “0” on that scale?) This is great idea and all but it forgets a lot of what politics is and comes from a flawed base perspective. C" Interesting can you explain that more? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Where would you place them on that -10 to +10 scale? Bearing in mind that I have said +10 is Fascist. If 10 is fascist e.g nazi( but they were actually left wing) And -10 is chairman mao Ignoring genocide. Because then pretty much every party would be 0 I'd put ukip at about 5 or 6. I'd put the current conservatives 1 or 2 I'd put thatchers gov about 6 or 7 Very interesting to see how you view things and assign a scoring on that scale. Just as you have said left wingers have skewed views over what is right wing, your results show a skew in the other direction due to you being more right wing than you realise. BTW saying the Nazis were left wing is complete nonsense. It is based on a completely debunked theory propagated by right wing thinkers who wanted to distance themselves from the Nazi atrocities. At it’s most inane level supporters of that theory point to the word “Socialist” in the NAZI title. This demonstrates a total misunderstanding around how the Nazis operated as it was purely appropriation of the word to appeal to the working classes. It was branding. Another factor proponents of “the Nazis are left wing” theory was how they exerted control over various industrial sectors (and trying to equate that with state ownership) ignoring Hitler’s intention to significantly militarise in preparation for the inevitable war(s) that would happen in response to German expansion. I am rather shocked a smart guy like you Morely has fallen for that complete fallacy! It is squarely in the conspiracy theory territory you often disparage.
No it's not its never been debunked look at their socialist policies.
Look how they came to power. Look what they enacted when in power.
Economically and socially they were actually very left wing.
Denialism is what goes on with the left ton this part.
"It most certainly has been completely debunked by almost ALL present day historians and contemporary historians. A simple google search will provide you with literally thousands of sites debunking it. I know how you like FullFact so... “Multiple posts on social media have claimed that the Nazi party were socialists, due to their full name—the National Socialist German Workers' Party. This argument has been used to attack socialism through association with Nazi policies. It has also led to confusion, as Nazism is normally associated with fascism and far-right-wing views. The issue of whether the Nazis were socialists isn’t a straightforward one, due to how the Nazi party developed and grew its base of support. But the consensus among historians is that the Nazis, and Hitler in particular, were not socialists in any meaningful sense. Historians have regularly disavowed claims that Hitler adhered to socialist ideology. Historian Richard Evans wrote of the Nazis’ incorporation of socialist into their name in 1920, “Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism….Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism”. Or as simply put by historian and Hitler expert Ian Kershaw, “Hitler was never a socialist.” Socialism, for supporters of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, appeared to substitute Marx’s idea of class war with a race one.” I can provide plenty more. The Nazis being left wing is complete nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Where would you place them on that -10 to +10 scale? Bearing in mind that I have said +10 is Fascist. If 10 is fascist e.g nazi( but they were actually left wing) And -10 is chairman mao Ignoring genocide. Because then pretty much every party would be 0 I'd put ukip at about 5 or 6. I'd put the current conservatives 1 or 2 I'd put thatchers gov about 6 or 7 Very interesting to see how you view things and assign a scoring on that scale. Just as you have said left wingers have skewed views over what is right wing, your results show a skew in the other direction due to you being more right wing than you realise. BTW saying the Nazis were left wing is complete nonsense. It is based on a completely debunked theory propagated by right wing thinkers who wanted to distance themselves from the Nazi atrocities. At it’s most inane level supporters of that theory point to the word “Socialist” in the NAZI title. This demonstrates a total misunderstanding around how the Nazis operated as it was purely appropriation of the word to appeal to the working classes. It was branding. Another factor proponents of “the Nazis are left wing” theory was how they exerted control over various industrial sectors (and trying to equate that with state ownership) ignoring Hitler’s intention to significantly militarise in preparation for the inevitable war(s) that would happen in response to German expansion. I am rather shocked a smart guy like you Morely has fallen for that complete fallacy! It is squarely in the conspiracy theory territory you often disparage.
No it's not its never been debunked look at their socialist policies.
Look how they came to power. Look what they enacted when in power.
Economically and socially they were actually very left wing.
Denialism is what goes on with the left ton this part.
Have you actuslly ever looked at the policies the nazi party undertook when in power. Or have you just heard a blog say they had socialist in their name but that's about it other than that they were right wing.
Because I've got some bad fucking news for you."Nope I don’t need to read some parhetic revisionism “blogs” from no marks because I got a 1st Class Hons in 20th Century History from a rather well known University. Consensus from historians Morley! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Large public spending on autobahn. Currency devaluation People often cite the privatisation of industries as right wing. They're wrong. The state still owned them. This was nothing different to the Margaret that privatising water for example but the state setting prices, capital spending, total employees etc. It was PINO privatisation in name only and simply served that Hitler would have people in power he wanted but the state controlled the asset. "The Cartel Act was amended on July 15, 1933, and supplemented at the same time by an Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels which placed existing cartels under the virtually complete control of the minister of economics, and also gave him power to force unorganized businesses into existing or new cartels. The Act stated expressly that it was not to be used as the basis for a planned economy, and it was intimated that it would be invoked as rarely as possible; but it was soon being used not only as a measure of control but also to cartelize many hitherto unorganized industries including cigarette, paper, radio equipment, electric bulbs, and steel wire makers. All organizations of entrepreneurs which were not brought under central control either dissolved voluntarily or were dissolved by the state." I can go on " So can I! They were strongly capitalist. The Nazis placed great emphasis on private property and free competition. It’s true that they intervened in the free market, but it was also a time of a systemic failure of capitalism on a global scale. Almost all states intervened in the market at the time, and they did so to save the capitalist system from itself. This has nothing to do with socialist sentiment: it was pro-capitalist. In a way, there’s a parallel there with the way big banks were bailed out by governments after the 2008 financial crisis broke out. That, of course, did not reflect socialist intentions in any way, either. It was merely an attempt to stabilize the system a little bit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Where would you place them on that -10 to +10 scale? Bearing in mind that I have said +10 is Fascist. If 10 is fascist e.g nazi( but they were actually left wing) And -10 is chairman mao Ignoring genocide. Because then pretty much every party would be 0 I'd put ukip at about 5 or 6. I'd put the current conservatives 1 or 2 I'd put thatchers gov about 6 or 7 Very interesting to see how you view things and assign a scoring on that scale. Just as you have said left wingers have skewed views over what is right wing, your results show a skew in the other direction due to you being more right wing than you realise. BTW saying the Nazis were left wing is complete nonsense. It is based on a completely debunked theory propagated by right wing thinkers who wanted to distance themselves from the Nazi atrocities. At it’s most inane level supporters of that theory point to the word “Socialist” in the NAZI title. This demonstrates a total misunderstanding around how the Nazis operated as it was purely appropriation of the word to appeal to the working classes. It was branding. Another factor proponents of “the Nazis are left wing” theory was how they exerted control over various industrial sectors (and trying to equate that with state ownership) ignoring Hitler’s intention to significantly militarise in preparation for the inevitable war(s) that would happen in response to German expansion. I am rather shocked a smart guy like you Morely has fallen for that complete fallacy! It is squarely in the conspiracy theory territory you often disparage.
No it's not its never been debunked look at their socialist policies.
Look how they came to power. Look what they enacted when in power.
Economically and socially they were actually very left wing.
Denialism is what goes on with the left ton this part.
Have you actuslly ever looked at the policies the nazi party undertook when in power. Or have you just heard a blog say they had socialist in their name but that's about it other than that they were right wing.
Because I've got some bad fucking news for you.
Nope I don’t need to read some parhetic revisionism “blogs” from no marks because I got a 1st Class Hons in 20th Century History from a rather well known University.
Consensus from historians Morley! "What is just quoted above was an economic historian. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Large public spending on autobahn. Currency devaluation People often cite the privatisation of industries as right wing. They're wrong. The state still owned them. This was nothing different to the Margaret that privatising water for example but the state setting prices, capital spending, total employees etc. It was PINO privatisation in name only and simply served that Hitler would have people in power he wanted but the state controlled the asset. "The Cartel Act was amended on July 15, 1933, and supplemented at the same time by an Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels which placed existing cartels under the virtually complete control of the minister of economics, and also gave him power to force unorganized businesses into existing or new cartels. The Act stated expressly that it was not to be used as the basis for a planned economy, and it was intimated that it would be invoked as rarely as possible; but it was soon being used not only as a measure of control but also to cartelize many hitherto unorganized industries including cigarette, paper, radio equipment, electric bulbs, and steel wire makers. All organizations of entrepreneurs which were not brought under central control either dissolved voluntarily or were dissolved by the state." I can go on So can I! They were strongly capitalist. The Nazis placed great emphasis on private property and free competition. It’s true that they intervened in the free market, but it was also a time of a systemic failure of capitalism on a global scale. Almost all states intervened in the market at the time, and they did so to save the capitalist system from itself. This has nothing to do with socialist sentiment: it was pro-capitalist. In a way, there’s a parallel there with the way big banks were bailed out by governments after the 2008 financial crisis broke out. That, of course, did not reflect socialist intentions in any way, either. It was merely an attempt to stabilize the system a little bit." They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The centre, by definition is where the majority of people are. If you look at the world and think everyone is right wing then you are on the left. If you look at the world and think everyone is left wing then you are on the right. If you look at the world and think everyone is bat shit crazy and ideologically mad then you are probably in the centre." To make a serious point on a ridiculous notion. If you think the Nazis are on the left. Maybe it's time to recognise that you are further to the right than Hitler. And that this may not be an optimal place to be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The centre, by definition is where the majority of people are. If you look at the world and think everyone is right wing then you are on the left. If you look at the world and think everyone is left wing then you are on the right. If you look at the world and think everyone is bat shit crazy and ideologically mad then you are probably in the centre. To make a serious point on a ridiculous notion. If you think the Nazis are on the left. Maybe it's time to recognise that you are further to the right than Hitler. And that this may not be an optimal place to be. " Feel free to actually put some of their policies enacted in their parliament up for scrutiny. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" This is getting scary. Are you for real, or just in full on trolling mode? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone these days not prescribing to a GBnews, Hard right Wing Tory Reese Mogg, Stop the boats Stop migration Profit at all cost Just Stop Oil are terrorists are labeled Rampant Left Wing Communist these days. I dont think they are But any one calling brexit party, ukip nigel farage far right needs their head checking. Are they not? No they're not Where would you place them on that -10 to +10 scale? Bearing in mind that I have said +10 is Fascist. If 10 is fascist e.g nazi( but they were actually left wing) And -10 is chairman mao Ignoring genocide. Because then pretty much every party would be 0 I'd put ukip at about 5 or 6. I'd put the current conservatives 1 or 2 I'd put thatchers gov about 6 or 7 Very interesting to see how you view things and assign a scoring on that scale. Just as you have said left wingers have skewed views over what is right wing, your results show a skew in the other direction due to you being more right wing than you realise. BTW saying the Nazis were left wing is complete nonsense. It is based on a completely debunked theory propagated by right wing thinkers who wanted to distance themselves from the Nazi atrocities. At it’s most inane level supporters of that theory point to the word “Socialist” in the NAZI title. This demonstrates a total misunderstanding around how the Nazis operated as it was purely appropriation of the word to appeal to the working classes. It was branding. Another factor proponents of “the Nazis are left wing” theory was how they exerted control over various industrial sectors (and trying to equate that with state ownership) ignoring Hitler’s intention to significantly militarise in preparation for the inevitable war(s) that would happen in response to German expansion. I am rather shocked a smart guy like you Morely has fallen for that complete fallacy! It is squarely in the conspiracy theory territory you often disparage.
No it's not its never been debunked look at their socialist policies.
Look how they came to power. Look what they enacted when in power.
Economically and socially they were actually very left wing.
Denialism is what goes on with the left ton this part.
Have you actuslly ever looked at the policies the nazi party undertook when in power. Or have you just heard a blog say they had socialist in their name but that's about it other than that they were right wing.
Because I've got some bad fucking news for you.
Nope I don’t need to read some parhetic revisionism “blogs” from no marks because I got a 1st Class Hons in 20th Century History from a rather well known University.
Consensus from historians Morley!
What is just quoted above was an economic historian. "Who? Does he represent consensus or is he an outlier? When did intellectuals actually start writing books accusing the Nazis of having pursued socialist economic policies? When did they start accusing the Nazis of having assisted the masses at the expense of the bourgeoisie? Exactly at the time that politicians tried to impose neoliberal reforms on the labor market (the 1980s). Hitler’s policies met the wishes of many industrialists, which made him so attractive to large sections of the bourgeoisie and the educated classes. The National Socialists were seen as liberating the economy from unnecessary burdens of political and humanistic sensitivity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me." Hmmm a policy designed to make a politician and party popular (and help industrialise), who have thunk it!!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" If you look at that statement out of context you may seek to draw a conclusion to support your agenda. But the context was seizure from Jews. Nothing to do with Socialism! “German worker” being restricted to ethnic aryans! That was not an economic policy! Jeez! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I always understood Hitler to be a socialist. It is difficult to see how anyone could argue otherwise. Personally I would not want to be associated with his socialist policies . " Pat that is bad taste trolling and not appropriate to this discussion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me." . I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me.. I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. " We've officially entered an alternative reality. Some days the fab forums seem like a competition to post the most ridiculous bollocks imaginable, then try to pretend it's for real. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I always understood Hitler to be a socialist. It is difficult to see how anyone could argue otherwise. Personally I would not want to be associated with his socialist policies . Pat that is bad taste trolling and not appropriate to this discussion." . I would consider it very appropriate. Many people describe him as a socialist. It looks like some sections of society want to turn a blind eye to reality. You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll. Whilst you are entitled to an opnion it might just be that your views are in a minority. I have always associated Hitler with socialism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me.. I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. We've officially entered an alternative reality. Some days the fab forums seem like a competition to post the most ridiculous bollocks imaginable, then try to pretend it's for real." . Most material that I have read describes Hitler as a socialist. It ie hardly ridiculous to accept the opinions of many unless you can provide otherwise . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me.. I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. " This is parody right ?!?! You really think he was socialist ? Love to hear your reasoning !!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One for Birldn - Whilst most of us will know without any thinking where the Nazis sat in terms of the social side of politics. That's what we all learn in GCSE History. Can you tell us in simple terms where they sat in the economic side? Where they on the right with some socialistic policies if 'you fitted in' (bad way of putting it probably)" They militarised the economy for the inevitable wars that were coming. You cannot look out the Nazis out of the context of their time (the great depression) which necessitated state intervention in markets. To repeat myself... They were strongly capitalist. Morley is conflating social policy with economic policy. There was no “class war” in Nazi ideology. They were supported by the rich and powerful. Any supposed redistribution of wealth (a socialist policy) was racially motivated and “populist”. The rich did not lose their wealth. The Jews did. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me.. I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. " Approx 99% of historians disagree with you Pat. However, please do share examples of Nazi policies that were clearly socialist (with context). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I always understood Hitler to be a socialist. It is difficult to see how anyone could argue otherwise. Personally I would not want to be associated with his socialist policies . Pat that is bad taste trolling and not appropriate to this discussion.. I would consider it very appropriate. Many people describe him as a socialist. It looks like some sections of society want to turn a blind eye to reality. You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll. Whilst you are entitled to an opnion it might just be that your views are in a minority. I have always associated Hitler with socialism. " Define/quantify many? Gonna quote myself again... When did intellectuals actually start writing books accusing the Nazis of having pursued socialist economic policies? When did they start accusing the Nazis of having assisted the masses at the expense of the bourgeoisie? Exactly at the time that politicians tried to impose neoliberal reforms on the labor market (the 1980s). Hitler’s policies met the wishes of many industrialists, which made him so attractive to large sections of the bourgeoisie and the educated classes. The National Socialists were seen as liberating the economy from unnecessary burdens of political and humanistic sensitivity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me.. I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. We've officially entered an alternative reality. Some days the fab forums seem like a competition to post the most ridiculous bollocks imaginable, then try to pretend it's for real.. Most material that I have read describes Hitler as a socialist. It ie hardly ridiculous to accept the opinions of many unless you can provide otherwise . " That is either an outright lie or your reading list is very small and part of an echo chamber. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me.. I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. We've officially entered an alternative reality. Some days the fab forums seem like a competition to post the most ridiculous bollocks imaginable, then try to pretend it's for real.. Most material that I have read describes Hitler as a socialist. It ie hardly ridiculous to accept the opinions of many unless you can provide otherwise . " You need to expand your reading then. Simple. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me.. I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. Approx 99% of historians disagree with you Pat. However, please do share examples of Nazi policies that were clearly socialist (with context)." . It would be intersting to have the source of your 99 %. When presented with a figure with which you disagree you often just accused people of making stuff up. Last week you scorned at some important information which I posted ,asked me to apologise yet made no attempt yourself to provide any alterative figures. Luckily I managed to extract all the supporting figures and the quote by myself was correct and fully supported up to 2018. Only a complete weirdo would write down the source of all information which they post and in any event who cares . If you are repairing a conbine harvester it would be crucial to reassemble all the parts correctly, otherwise it would not function. What anyone posts on here is irrelevant to everyday life and only used to pass idle time. For the period from 2019 to 2022 despite you snearing at the figures quoted I am satisfied that they were correct and quoted in good faith . Whilst I do not want to insult any poster . the opinions of Priti Patel and Sue Braverman will take preference over opinions quoted on here . They represent a democratically elected government who are battling against lawyers who are simply out to line their own pockets at the expense of ordinary working people. As far as I am aware at least 66 % of the electorate support the policies of the Home Secretary. Woke warriors are only a very vocal but small and insignificant section of society . Indivuals such as Gary Lineker are simply out to line their own pockets . An individual with no sense of shame who was investigated by HMRC for channeling his earning through a service company. It seems that the only person he wants to help is himself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me.. I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. We've officially entered an alternative reality. Some days the fab forums seem like a competition to post the most ridiculous bollocks imaginable, then try to pretend it's for real.. Most material that I have read describes Hitler as a socialist. It ie hardly ridiculous to accept the opinions of many unless you can provide otherwise . That is either an outright lie or your reading list is very small and part of an echo chamber." . You have used your favourite word again. It would seem that no one is allowed to have a different opinion to yours or analyse information in a different way to you. . I generally recognise that only 50% of the population would agree with my opinion , you seem to think that everyone agrees with yours | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me.. I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. We've officially entered an alternative reality. Some days the fab forums seem like a competition to post the most ridiculous bollocks imaginable, then try to pretend it's for real.. Most material that I have read describes Hitler as a socialist. It ie hardly ridiculous to accept the opinions of many unless you can provide otherwise . That is either an outright lie or your reading list is very small and part of an echo chamber.. You have used your favourite word again. It would seem that no one is allowed to have a different opinion to yours or analyse information in a different way to you. . I generally recognise that only 50% of the population would agree with my opinion , you seem to think that everyone agrees with yours " People are allowed to have different opinions. Sensible opinions are worth discussing. Opinions about the moon being made of cheese, aliens building the pyramids, Hitler being left wing, COVID being a Bill Gates conspiracy, or Brexit being a good idea are all just so ridiculous why would anyone engage in any serious discussion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me.. I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. We've officially entered an alternative reality. Some days the fab forums seem like a competition to post the most ridiculous bollocks imaginable, then try to pretend it's for real.. Most material that I have read describes Hitler as a socialist. It ie hardly ridiculous to accept the opinions of many unless you can provide otherwise . That is either an outright lie or your reading list is very small and part of an echo chamber.. You have used your favourite word again. It would seem that no one is allowed to have a different opinion to yours or analyse information in a different way to you. . I generally recognise that only 50% of the population would agree with my opinion , you seem to think that everyone agrees with yours People are allowed to have different opinions. Sensible opinions are worth discussing. Opinions about the moon being made of cheese, aliens building the pyramids, Hitler being left wing, COVID being a Bill Gates conspiracy, or Brexit being a good idea are all just so ridiculous why would anyone engage in any serious discussion?" . It looks like you have answered your own question. 52 % voted for Brexit so hardly a minority and Hitler was usually described as a socialist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me.. I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. We've officially entered an alternative reality. Some days the fab forums seem like a competition to post the most ridiculous bollocks imaginable, then try to pretend it's for real.. Most material that I have read describes Hitler as a socialist. It ie hardly ridiculous to accept the opinions of many unless you can provide otherwise . That is either an outright lie or your reading list is very small and part of an echo chamber.. You have used your favourite word again. It would seem that no one is allowed to have a different opinion to yours or analyse information in a different way to you. . I generally recognise that only 50% of the population would agree with my opinion , you seem to think that everyone agrees with yours People are allowed to have different opinions. Sensible opinions are worth discussing. Opinions about the moon being made of cheese, aliens building the pyramids, Hitler being left wing, COVID being a Bill Gates conspiracy, or Brexit being a good idea are all just so ridiculous why would anyone engage in any serious discussion?. It looks like you have answered your own question. 52 % voted for Brexit so hardly a minority and Hitler was usually described as a socialist. " Who said it was a minority? To remind you, I said "Brexit being a good idea". And "Hitler was usually described as a socialist", let's face it, is just bullshit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me.. I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. Approx 99% of historians disagree with you Pat. However, please do share examples of Nazi policies that were clearly socialist (with context).. It would be intersting to have the source of your 99 %. When presented with a figure with which you disagree you often just accused people of making stuff up. Last week you scorned at some important information which I posted ,asked me to apologise yet made no attempt yourself to provide any alterative figures. Luckily I managed to extract all the supporting figures and the quote by myself was correct and fully supported up to 2018. Only a complete weirdo would write down the source of all information which they post and in any event who cares . If you are repairing a conbine harvester it would be crucial to reassemble all the parts correctly, otherwise it would not function. What anyone posts on here is irrelevant to everyday life and only used to pass idle time. For the period from 2019 to 2022 despite you snearing at the figures quoted I am satisfied that they were correct and quoted in good faith . Whilst I do not want to insult any poster . the opinions of Priti Patel and Sue Braverman will take preference over opinions quoted on here . They represent a democratically elected government who are battling against lawyers who are simply out to line their own pockets at the expense of ordinary working people. As far as I am aware at least 66 % of the electorate support the policies of the Home Secretary. Woke warriors are only a very vocal but small and insignificant section of society . Indivuals such as Gary Lineker are simply out to line their own pockets . An individual with no sense of shame who was investigated by HMRC for channeling his earning through a service company. It seems that the only person he wants to help is himself. " 99% - You understand irony I take it? WTAF has the rest of your post got to do with the Nazis and the overwhelming, almost unanimous, consensus amongst historians that the Nazis were not left wing or socialists? Totally debunked theory. As I have already said, the timing of that hypotheses appeared around the same time as a move towards neo-liberal deregulation of labour markets. The intention to associate the horrendous acts of the Nazis with left wing/socialist/worker protection. The economic ideology of the Nazis is impossible to disaggregate from their social policies and end game. Even at the most simplistic and basic level, you only need to look at who supported and allied with the Nazis during the 30s. Mosley and the British Fascists, the darlings of your beloved Daily Mail at the time, totally aligned with the Nazis and were anti Socialist and anti communist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me. Hmmm a policy designed to make a politician and party popular (and help industrialise), who have thunk it!!!!" So you have no comeback to their socialist policies then. I can keep going? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do? If you look at that statement out of context you may seek to draw a conclusion to support your agenda. But the context was seizure from Jews. Nothing to do with Socialism! “German worker” being restricted to ethnic aryans! That was not an economic policy! Jeez!" Thisnis now just completely revisionist Take time to read a history book or 10 on the nazis. They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews. All you are doing now is completely proving your ignorance on the subject as with many. The holocaust was enabled because they blamed the rich Jews for germanys struggles. And seized their property to give to the working class german I wish I could say I am shocked at the complete ignorance. But the left who like to read little blogs claiming the nazi party weren't socialist Al follow the same ignorant lines. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me.. I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. Approx 99% of historians disagree with you Pat. However, please do share examples of Nazi policies that were clearly socialist (with context).. It would be intersting to have the source of your 99 %. When presented with a figure with which you disagree you often just accused people of making stuff up. Last week you scorned at some important information which I posted ,asked me to apologise yet made no attempt yourself to provide any alterative figures. Luckily I managed to extract all the supporting figures and the quote by myself was correct and fully supported up to 2018. Only a complete weirdo would write down the source of all information which they post and in any event who cares . If you are repairing a conbine harvester it would be crucial to reassemble all the parts correctly, otherwise it would not function. What anyone posts on here is irrelevant to everyday life and only used to pass idle time. For the period from 2019 to 2022 despite you snearing at the figures quoted I am satisfied that they were correct and quoted in good faith . Whilst I do not want to insult any poster . the opinions of Priti Patel and Sue Braverman will take preference over opinions quoted on here . They represent a democratically elected government who are battling against lawyers who are simply out to line their own pockets at the expense of ordinary working people. As far as I am aware at least 66 % of the electorate support the policies of the Home Secretary. Woke warriors are only a very vocal but small and insignificant section of society . Indivuals such as Gary Lineker are simply out to line their own pockets . An individual with no sense of shame who was investigated by HMRC for channeling his earning through a service company. It seems that the only person he wants to help is himself. 99% - You understand irony I take it? WTAF has the rest of your post got to do with the Nazis and the overwhelming, almost unanimous, consensus amongst historians that the Nazis were not left wing or socialists? Totally debunked theory. As I have already said, the timing of that hypotheses appeared around the same time as a move towards neo-liberal deregulation of labour markets. The intention to associate the horrendous acts of the Nazis with left wing/socialist/worker protection. The economic ideology of the Nazis is impossible to disaggregate from their social policies and end game. Even at the most simplistic and basic level, you only need to look at who supported and allied with the Nazis during the 30s. Mosley and the British Fascists, the darlings of your beloved Daily Mail at the time, totally aligned with the Nazis and were anti Socialist and anti communist." . Another poster on this thread has already advised that Hitler was left wing. That is independent of my comment. Another poster had suggested that Hitler was right wing so the case would appear to be 50 / 50 which is very different to the case that you are attempting to present. I have always associated Hitler with socialism | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Large public spending on autobahn. Currency devaluation People often cite the privatisation of industries as right wing. They're wrong. The state still owned them. This was nothing different to the Margaret that privatising water for example but the state setting prices, capital spending, total employees etc. It was PINO privatisation in name only and simply served that Hitler would have people in power he wanted but the state controlled the asset. "The Cartel Act was amended on July 15, 1933, and supplemented at the same time by an Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels which placed existing cartels under the virtually complete control of the minister of economics, and also gave him power to force unorganized businesses into existing or new cartels. The Act stated expressly that it was not to be used as the basis for a planned economy, and it was intimated that it would be invoked as rarely as possible; but it was soon being used not only as a measure of control but also to cartelize many hitherto unorganized industries including cigarette, paper, radio equipment, electric bulbs, and steel wire makers. All organizations of entrepreneurs which were not brought under central control either dissolved voluntarily or were dissolved by the state." I can go on So can I! They were strongly capitalist. The Nazis placed great emphasis on private property and free competition. It’s true that they intervened in the free market, but it was also a time of a systemic failure of capitalism on a global scale. Almost all states intervened in the market at the time, and they did so to save the capitalist system from itself. This has nothing to do with socialist sentiment: it was pro-capitalist. In a way, there’s a parallel there with the way big banks were bailed out by governments after the 2008 financial crisis broke out. That, of course, did not reflect socialist intentions in any way, either. It was merely an attempt to stabilize the system a little bit. They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Just spotted this! LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property. 2. You cannot disaggregate Nazi economic policy from social policy. It is simply impossible due to their intended end game. 3. If they were socialist they would have redistributed wealth regardless of race and based on “class”. This simply did not happen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end" Thanks NotMe for attempting to bring the thread back on track. I think you are correct. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me. Hmmm a policy designed to make a politician and party popular (and help industrialise), who have thunk it!!!! So you have no comeback to their socialist policies then. I can keep going?" Read ALL the posts, might make it easier | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do? If you look at that statement out of context you may seek to draw a conclusion to support your agenda. But the context was seizure from Jews. Nothing to do with Socialism! “German worker” being restricted to ethnic aryans! That was not an economic policy! Jeez! Thisnis now just completely revisionist Take time to read a history book or 10 on the nazis. They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews. All you are doing now is completely proving your ignorance on the subject as with many. The holocaust was enabled because they blamed the rich Jews for germanys struggles. And seized their property to give to the working class german I wish I could say I am shocked at the complete ignorance. But the left who like to read little blogs claiming the nazi party weren't socialist Al follow the same ignorant lines." I strongly suspect I have read a few more books on the Nazis, and history in general, than you. However, I have never questioned your assertion that you are a qualified accountant or that you have studied economics. I took it at face value because only a sad insecure twat would lie about their own knowledge of area of expertise. I studied history at Uni. Now your post needs breaking down because you have conflated different time periods. When you say “campaign” are you referring to elections that got them into office? If so then absolutely they focused on the “rich” as an election tool. But once they were in power, their seizure of property was not targeting “the rich” it was targeting ALL Jews. The rich ayran Germans dud nit see their property seized. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe we need to look at VW history? The car for the people. Every German to have a car. And members of the labour front to be first. Doesn't seem right wing to me.. I guess for some the truth hurts and they want to turn a blind eye to reality. It was be very difficult to argue that Hitler was not a socialist. Approx 99% of historians disagree with you Pat. However, please do share examples of Nazi policies that were clearly socialist (with context).. It would be intersting to have the source of your 99 %. When presented with a figure with which you disagree you often just accused people of making stuff up. Last week you scorned at some important information which I posted ,asked me to apologise yet made no attempt yourself to provide any alterative figures. Luckily I managed to extract all the supporting figures and the quote by myself was correct and fully supported up to 2018. Only a complete weirdo would write down the source of all information which they post and in any event who cares . If you are repairing a conbine harvester it would be crucial to reassemble all the parts correctly, otherwise it would not function. What anyone posts on here is irrelevant to everyday life and only used to pass idle time. For the period from 2019 to 2022 despite you snearing at the figures quoted I am satisfied that they were correct and quoted in good faith . Whilst I do not want to insult any poster . the opinions of Priti Patel and Sue Braverman will take preference over opinions quoted on here . They represent a democratically elected government who are battling against lawyers who are simply out to line their own pockets at the expense of ordinary working people. As far as I am aware at least 66 % of the electorate support the policies of the Home Secretary. Woke warriors are only a very vocal but small and insignificant section of society . Indivuals such as Gary Lineker are simply out to line their own pockets . An individual with no sense of shame who was investigated by HMRC for channeling his earning through a service company. It seems that the only person he wants to help is himself. 99% - You understand irony I take it? WTAF has the rest of your post got to do with the Nazis and the overwhelming, almost unanimous, consensus amongst historians that the Nazis were not left wing or socialists? Totally debunked theory. As I have already said, the timing of that hypotheses appeared around the same time as a move towards neo-liberal deregulation of labour markets. The intention to associate the horrendous acts of the Nazis with left wing/socialist/worker protection. The economic ideology of the Nazis is impossible to disaggregate from their social policies and end game. Even at the most simplistic and basic level, you only need to look at who supported and allied with the Nazis during the 30s. Mosley and the British Fascists, the darlings of your beloved Daily Mail at the time, totally aligned with the Nazis and were anti Socialist and anti communist.. Another poster on this thread has already advised that Hitler was left wing. That is independent of my comment. Another poster had suggested that Hitler was right wing so the case would appear to be 50 / 50 which is very different to the case that you are attempting to present. I have always associated Hitler with socialism " Associating Hitler with Socialism is simply incorrect. Starting to sound like you now Pat, but any rationale person would look at all the evidence and clearly see why that is the case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We can talk about how Hitler took all the charity and welfare organisations and amalgamated them into 1 singular welfare system controlled by the state? Which excluded all non Germany and Jews? " You need to read all the posts. I am not going to keep repeating myself. You are wrong. Context us everything: 1. The economic situation in Germany in the 20s and early 30s was dire due in part to the reparations for WWI. 2. The whole western world was reeling from the crash and great depression. All countries increased state intervention in that era, not to promote socialism but to protect capitalism. 3. The Nazis and Hitler wanted to gain power at any cost and appropriated ideas that would make them popular and at that time socialist concepts appealed to working classes so they exploited that. 4. Once in power, and having consolidated that power, they abandoned many of these policies in a move towards the economic recovery necessary to militarise in preparation for the inevitable wars that would result from German expansion. 5. They also seized ALL Jewish possessions (and forbade Jews from working in Government roles/Civil Service/Judiciary and owning businesses) and distributed to Aryan Germans (but not evenly, as this was not a socialist policy). I could go on too but I am getting bored now...! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end" Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Now then that we've debunked the nazi party being right wing. ." Ha ha ha ha ha ha THAT is the single most self delusional post I have ever seen on this forum. You have debunked absolutely nothing. Zip. HILARIOUS! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Now then that we've debunked the nazi party being right wing. Which of the brexit party and ukip manifestos were far right? I am still awaiting an answer on this." If you think the Nazis weren't right wing, you're unlikely to think anything is right wing. Just utterly pointless even discussing the topic if you just say the most ridiculous thing you can think of. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe Tommy Shelby was right; that politics isn't a line going out to the left and the right from the middle. But rather it's a circle. And if you go far enough to the right or the left, eventually you'll meet the other side. Extreme nationalism meets extreme socialism... and National Socialism is born! Or maybe not, In dunno. But I liked the show and that scene was really good, m'kay?" Peaky Blinders is awesome but Steven Knight just borrowed the well trodden circle theory (my GCSE teacher talked about it and that was longer ago than a I’d like). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Now then that we've debunked the nazi party being right wing. . Ha ha ha ha ha ha THAT is the single most self delusional post I have ever seen on this forum. You have debunked absolutely nothing. Zip. HILARIOUS! " I have just realised (a bit slow of me) that Morley is trying to argue the Nazis were left wing via a purely economic lens. I shouldn’t be surprised an accountant sees the world through such a myopic narrow view. To them only numbers matter! I have already said in other posts that it is impossible to disaggregate Nazi economic policy from their social policy and ultimate end game of German expansion. The economy was subservient to those latter two priorities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe Tommy Shelby was right; that politics isn't a line going out to the left and the right from the middle. But rather it's a circle. And if you go far enough to the right or the left, eventually you'll meet the other side. Extreme nationalism meets extreme socialism... and National Socialism is born! Or maybe not, In dunno. But I liked the show and that scene was really good, m'kay?" I love peaky blinders. But I don't agree with the circle argument. The confusion comes from using just left/right as a way to differentiate political views. If you split it into economic and social axis it makes sense. They are two different things. Authoritarianism is on the social side. The Nazis were socially authoritarian to begin with. Their economic views are up for debate on whether it's right, left or centre. Governments which are economically far left will eventually end up being socially authoritarian too because for various reasons. Hence most socialist governments end up being authoritarian, which is what gives the illusion that it's a circle. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe Tommy Shelby was right; that politics isn't a line going out to the left and the right from the middle. But rather it's a circle. And if you go far enough to the right or the left, eventually you'll meet the other side. Extreme nationalism meets extreme socialism... and National Socialism is born! Or maybe not, In dunno. But I liked the show and that scene was really good, m'kay? I love peaky blinders. But I don't agree with the circle argument. The confusion comes from using just left/right as a way to differentiate political views. If you split it into economic and social axis it makes sense. They are two different things. Authoritarianism is on the social side. The Nazis were socially authoritarian to begin with. Their economic views are up for debate on whether it's right, left or centre. Governments which are economically far left will eventually end up being socially authoritarian too because for various reasons. Hence most socialist governments end up being authoritarian, which is what gives the illusion that it's a circle." Agreed. Of course there are more than two dimensions (already said so above) but the honest answer regarding this thread was I had no way to type that/visualise in the Fab Forums 
I went for a simple linear scale because the purpose of the thread was identify what is centrist currently in the UK not to get sidetracked into a discussion on Nazism. Thank Morley for that! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no experise here. However it appears some are talking about socialist policies whereas others are talking about socialist motivation. " Not quite. Morley seems to think everything boils down to economic policies and chooses to completely ignore social policies and the actual aims/ambitions of the Nazi regime. You simply cannot disaggregate these and then point at a single dimension and say “look they were socialists”. It’s a completely reductive argument. The Nazis economic approach (and social policies working in tandem) were wholly subservient to their aims for militarisation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no experise here. However it appears some are talking about socialist policies whereas others are talking about socialist motivation. Not quite. Morley seems to think everything boils down to economic policies and chooses to completely ignore social policies and the actual aims/ambitions of the Nazi regime. You simply cannot disaggregate these and then point at a single dimension and say “look they were socialists”. It’s a completely reductive argument. The Nazis economic approach (and social policies working in tandem) were wholly subservient to their aims for militarisation. " that is a better way of explaining what I was observing. It seems state control was also being equated with socialism. Even if that's a economic policy on the face of it, in my mind how you use that control will show what type of party you are. Is that an example of ignoring social politics? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no experise here. However it appears some are talking about socialist policies whereas others are talking about socialist motivation. Not quite. Morley seems to think everything boils down to economic policies and chooses to completely ignore social policies and the actual aims/ambitions of the Nazi regime. You simply cannot disaggregate these and then point at a single dimension and say “look they were socialists”. It’s a completely reductive argument. The Nazis economic approach (and social policies working in tandem) were wholly subservient to their aims for militarisation. that is a better way of explaining what I was observing. It seems state control was also being equated with socialism. Even if that's a economic policy on the face of it, in my mind how you use that control will show what type of party you are. Is that an example of ignoring social politics? " Yes. The Nazis aims was to increase the size of Germany. That required huge militarisation which in turn required a hugely stronger economy (Germany/Weimar Republic was on its knees). However, this was a self fulfilling prophecy because Germany lacked resources to be fully self sufficient hence also needing to conquer other countries to secure access to their resources. Initially this was via “peaceful” annexation (Austria, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia) but ultimately they knew it would lead to war, thus needing a more powerful military thus needing a more powerful economy and so on ad infinitum. State control of production was in service to militarisation not socialist policy or the redistribution of wealth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years?" The majority of the country who are middle of the road preferred the conservative ideas at the time of voting more than labour. It is that simple. If you really want to know why we have had a tory government for so long it is very easy to explain... Labour lost the election under Brown in 2010, recession and a list of things that made them unelectable stacked up. Labour were broken and it has taken years to get themselves back on their feet. Along the way they have had controversial leaders that people didn't like. You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... Moving onto brexit, the tories were really at the end of their rein by the time the 2019 elections came about, they had served a purpose for the traditional red voters of the north who wanted to leave the EU. However they won with an 80 seat majority, due mainly to a lack of trust from those same northern labour voters, they thought the labour party would not see brexit through and seemingly hinting at times of a second referendum, cancelling their votes was not something leave labour voters were willing to gamble on. And here we are, the facts laid out and easy to cross check, but you still insist on blaming the tory government for some kind of mind control that does not serve the people only big money organisations. This was a long way of saying you are wrong, the tory government once in power did exactly what the people wanted and voted for, you simply can't accept that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years? The majority of the country who are middle of the road preferred the conservative ideas at the time of voting more than labour. It is that simple. If you really want to know why we have had a tory government for so long it is very easy to explain... Labour lost the election under Brown in 2010, recession and a list of things that made them unelectable stacked up. Labour were broken and it has taken years to get themselves back on their feet. Along the way they have had controversial leaders that people didn't like. You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... Moving onto brexit, the tories were really at the end of their rein by the time the 2019 elections came about, they had served a purpose for the traditional red voters of the north who wanted to leave the EU. However they won with an 80 seat majority, due mainly to a lack of trust from those same northern labour voters, they thought the labour party would not see brexit through and seemingly hinting at times of a second referendum, cancelling their votes was not something leave labour voters were willing to gamble on. And here we are, the facts laid out and easy to cross check, but you still insist on blaming the tory government for some kind of mind control that does not serve the people only big money organisations. This was a long way of saying you are wrong, the tory government once in power did exactly what the people wanted and voted for, you simply can't accept that." Interesting view from the Tory side. Basically blaming Labour. And people still hanging on to the brexit turd? Fair enough. But if you look deeper, why do the public want a self serving government with policies that are damaging to them. Like austerity, Brexit etc, while they blatantly serve big corporations and their pals (fast tracking their friends and neighbours PPE start up companies to multi-million pound contracts). I'm arguing it's the Tory PR machine, plus the supporting media. What's the alternative, people like being down trodden? They know their place? I prefer to give them more credit and suggest that the electorate isn't very politically engaged, believe all the simple solutions to complex solutions that they're offered. 'the EU cause all your problems' 'those people in that small boat cause all your problems' Etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... " This forum isn’t exactly grounds for reliable research. Check out which party the Sun backs building up to election time, and compare it to the election winner. Their record is pretty good. If people couldn’t be brainwashed, we wouldn’t have advertising. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years? The majority of the country who are middle of the road preferred the conservative ideas at the time of voting more than labour. It is that simple. If you really want to know why we have had a tory government for so long it is very easy to explain... Labour lost the election under Brown in 2010, recession and a list of things that made them unelectable stacked up. Labour were broken and it has taken years to get themselves back on their feet. Along the way they have had controversial leaders that people didn't like. You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... Moving onto brexit, the tories were really at the end of their rein by the time the 2019 elections came about, they had served a purpose for the traditional red voters of the north who wanted to leave the EU. However they won with an 80 seat majority, due mainly to a lack of trust from those same northern labour voters, they thought the labour party would not see brexit through and seemingly hinting at times of a second referendum, cancelling their votes was not something leave labour voters were willing to gamble on. And here we are, the facts laid out and easy to cross check, but you still insist on blaming the tory government for some kind of mind control that does not serve the people only big money organisations. This was a long way of saying you are wrong, the tory government once in power did exactly what the people wanted and voted for, you simply can't accept that. Interesting view from the Tory side. Basically blaming Labour. And people still hanging on to the brexit turd? Fair enough. But if you look deeper, why do the public want a self serving government with policies that are damaging to them. Like austerity, Brexit etc, while they blatantly serve big corporations and their pals (fast tracking their friends and neighbours PPE start up companies to multi-million pound contracts). I'm arguing it's the Tory PR machine, plus the supporting media. What's the alternative, people like being down trodden? They know their place? I prefer to give them more credit and suggest that the electorate isn't very politically engaged, believe all the simple solutions to complex solutions that they're offered. 'the EU cause all your problems' 'those people in that small boat cause all your problems' Etc." Surely you understand any government needs to encourage and support businesses to thrive? They are the backbone of the country, economically and provide the wealth the country needs to develop. This economics 101. You seem to complain about this at every opportunity, as I said and I will say again, the government no matter the colour needs businesses and businesses that sell their service and product overseas are the most valued. You say the electorate are not engaged and I tend to agree, that is after all why we vote for a MP to serve our interests and why we have a government to enact on our wishes and sometimes not our wishes. You holding onto the the media control and collaboration with the government is not allowing you to view a level landscape, you are forever looking up the hill and not liking what you see. No amount of reasoning with you is going to change your conspiracy ideas of government, pr machines, media and big business. I admire your consistency in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is not a backhanded compliment by the way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years? The majority of the country who are middle of the road preferred the conservative ideas at the time of voting more than labour. It is that simple. If you really want to know why we have had a tory government for so long it is very easy to explain... Labour lost the election under Brown in 2010, recession and a list of things that made them unelectable stacked up. Labour were broken and it has taken years to get themselves back on their feet. Along the way they have had controversial leaders that people didn't like. You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... Moving onto brexit, the tories were really at the end of their rein by the time the 2019 elections came about, they had served a purpose for the traditional red voters of the north who wanted to leave the EU. However they won with an 80 seat majority, due mainly to a lack of trust from those same northern labour voters, they thought the labour party would not see brexit through and seemingly hinting at times of a second referendum, cancelling their votes was not something leave labour voters were willing to gamble on. And here we are, the facts laid out and easy to cross check, but you still insist on blaming the tory government for some kind of mind control that does not serve the people only big money organisations. This was a long way of saying you are wrong, the tory government once in power did exactly what the people wanted and voted for, you simply can't accept that. Interesting view from the Tory side. Basically blaming Labour. And people still hanging on to the brexit turd? Fair enough. But if you look deeper, why do the public want a self serving government with policies that are damaging to them. Like austerity, Brexit etc, while they blatantly serve big corporations and their pals (fast tracking their friends and neighbours PPE start up companies to multi-million pound contracts). I'm arguing it's the Tory PR machine, plus the supporting media. What's the alternative, people like being down trodden? They know their place? I prefer to give them more credit and suggest that the electorate isn't very politically engaged, believe all the simple solutions to complex solutions that they're offered. 'the EU cause all your problems' 'those people in that small boat cause all your problems' Etc. Surely you understand any government needs to encourage and support businesses to thrive? They are the backbone of the country, economically and provide the wealth the country needs to develop. This economics 101. You seem to complain about this at every opportunity, as I said and I will say again, the government no matter the colour needs businesses and businesses that sell their service and product overseas are the most valued. You say the electorate are not engaged and I tend to agree, that is after all why we vote for a MP to serve our interests and why we have a government to enact on our wishes and sometimes not our wishes. You holding onto the the media control and collaboration with the government is not allowing you to view a level landscape, you are forever looking up the hill and not liking what you see. No amount of reasoning with you is going to change your conspiracy ideas of government, pr machines, media and big business. I admire your consistency in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is not a backhanded compliment by the way. " Okay. Let's simply the question. Why do you think the electorate continually votes against their own interests? Successive Tory governments, Brexit etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years? The majority of the country who are middle of the road preferred the conservative ideas at the time of voting more than labour. It is that simple. If you really want to know why we have had a tory government for so long it is very easy to explain... Labour lost the election under Brown in 2010, recession and a list of things that made them unelectable stacked up. Labour were broken and it has taken years to get themselves back on their feet. Along the way they have had controversial leaders that people didn't like. You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... Moving onto brexit, the tories were really at the end of their rein by the time the 2019 elections came about, they had served a purpose for the traditional red voters of the north who wanted to leave the EU. However they won with an 80 seat majority, due mainly to a lack of trust from those same northern labour voters, they thought the labour party would not see brexit through and seemingly hinting at times of a second referendum, cancelling their votes was not something leave labour voters were willing to gamble on. And here we are, the facts laid out and easy to cross check, but you still insist on blaming the tory government for some kind of mind control that does not serve the people only big money organisations. This was a long way of saying you are wrong, the tory government once in power did exactly what the people wanted and voted for, you simply can't accept that. Interesting view from the Tory side. Basically blaming Labour. And people still hanging on to the brexit turd? Fair enough. But if you look deeper, why do the public want a self serving government with policies that are damaging to them. Like austerity, Brexit etc, while they blatantly serve big corporations and their pals (fast tracking their friends and neighbours PPE start up companies to multi-million pound contracts). I'm arguing it's the Tory PR machine, plus the supporting media. What's the alternative, people like being down trodden? They know their place? I prefer to give them more credit and suggest that the electorate isn't very politically engaged, believe all the simple solutions to complex solutions that they're offered. 'the EU cause all your problems' 'those people in that small boat cause all your problems' Etc. Surely you understand any government needs to encourage and support businesses to thrive? They are the backbone of the country, economically and provide the wealth the country needs to develop. This economics 101. You seem to complain about this at every opportunity, as I said and I will say again, the government no matter the colour needs businesses and businesses that sell their service and product overseas are the most valued. You say the electorate are not engaged and I tend to agree, that is after all why we vote for a MP to serve our interests and why we have a government to enact on our wishes and sometimes not our wishes. You holding onto the the media control and collaboration with the government is not allowing you to view a level landscape, you are forever looking up the hill and not liking what you see. No amount of reasoning with you is going to change your conspiracy ideas of government, pr machines, media and big business. I admire your consistency in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is not a backhanded compliment by the way. Okay. Let's simply the question. Why do you think the electorate continually votes against their own interests? Successive Tory governments, Brexit etc." Firstly the electorate voted for a brexit so did not believe it to be against their own interests. The successive tory government I answered above, and I thought it was clear? Tories have served a purpose at every election over the opposition and this is why we have had 13 years of tory government. Go back and read my reasoning and challenge it if you think it is wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years? The majority of the country who are middle of the road preferred the conservative ideas at the time of voting more than labour. It is that simple. If you really want to know why we have had a tory government for so long it is very easy to explain... Labour lost the election under Brown in 2010, recession and a list of things that made them unelectable stacked up. Labour were broken and it has taken years to get themselves back on their feet. Along the way they have had controversial leaders that people didn't like. You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... Moving onto brexit, the tories were really at the end of their rein by the time the 2019 elections came about, they had served a purpose for the traditional red voters of the north who wanted to leave the EU. However they won with an 80 seat majority, due mainly to a lack of trust from those same northern labour voters, they thought the labour party would not see brexit through and seemingly hinting at times of a second referendum, cancelling their votes was not something leave labour voters were willing to gamble on. And here we are, the facts laid out and easy to cross check, but you still insist on blaming the tory government for some kind of mind control that does not serve the people only big money organisations. This was a long way of saying you are wrong, the tory government once in power did exactly what the people wanted and voted for, you simply can't accept that. Interesting view from the Tory side. Basically blaming Labour. And people still hanging on to the brexit turd? Fair enough. But if you look deeper, why do the public want a self serving government with policies that are damaging to them. Like austerity, Brexit etc, while they blatantly serve big corporations and their pals (fast tracking their friends and neighbours PPE start up companies to multi-million pound contracts). I'm arguing it's the Tory PR machine, plus the supporting media. What's the alternative, people like being down trodden? They know their place? I prefer to give them more credit and suggest that the electorate isn't very politically engaged, believe all the simple solutions to complex solutions that they're offered. 'the EU cause all your problems' 'those people in that small boat cause all your problems' Etc. Surely you understand any government needs to encourage and support businesses to thrive? They are the backbone of the country, economically and provide the wealth the country needs to develop. This economics 101. You seem to complain about this at every opportunity, as I said and I will say again, the government no matter the colour needs businesses and businesses that sell their service and product overseas are the most valued. You say the electorate are not engaged and I tend to agree, that is after all why we vote for a MP to serve our interests and why we have a government to enact on our wishes and sometimes not our wishes. You holding onto the the media control and collaboration with the government is not allowing you to view a level landscape, you are forever looking up the hill and not liking what you see. No amount of reasoning with you is going to change your conspiracy ideas of government, pr machines, media and big business. I admire your consistency in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is not a backhanded compliment by the way. Okay. Let's simply the question. Why do you think the electorate continually votes against their own interests? Successive Tory governments, Brexit etc. Firstly the electorate voted for a brexit so did not believe it to be against their own interests. " Yes! Now we're getting somewhere. Why did the not believe it was against their own interests? " The successive tory government I answered above, and I thought it was clear? Tories have served a purpose at every election over the opposition and this is why we have had 13 years of tory government. Go back and read my reasoning and challenge it if you think it is wrong " Honestly, I don't think we're understanding eachother. I'm asking why you think people voted against their own interests. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years? The majority of the country who are middle of the road preferred the conservative ideas at the time of voting more than labour. It is that simple. If you really want to know why we have had a tory government for so long it is very easy to explain... Labour lost the election under Brown in 2010, recession and a list of things that made them unelectable stacked up. Labour were broken and it has taken years to get themselves back on their feet. Along the way they have had controversial leaders that people didn't like. You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... Moving onto brexit, the tories were really at the end of their rein by the time the 2019 elections came about, they had served a purpose for the traditional red voters of the north who wanted to leave the EU. However they won with an 80 seat majority, due mainly to a lack of trust from those same northern labour voters, they thought the labour party would not see brexit through and seemingly hinting at times of a second referendum, cancelling their votes was not something leave labour voters were willing to gamble on. And here we are, the facts laid out and easy to cross check, but you still insist on blaming the tory government for some kind of mind control that does not serve the people only big money organisations. This was a long way of saying you are wrong, the tory government once in power did exactly what the people wanted and voted for, you simply can't accept that. Interesting view from the Tory side. Basically blaming Labour. And people still hanging on to the brexit turd? Fair enough. But if you look deeper, why do the public want a self serving government with policies that are damaging to them. Like austerity, Brexit etc, while they blatantly serve big corporations and their pals (fast tracking their friends and neighbours PPE start up companies to multi-million pound contracts). I'm arguing it's the Tory PR machine, plus the supporting media. What's the alternative, people like being down trodden? They know their place? I prefer to give them more credit and suggest that the electorate isn't very politically engaged, believe all the simple solutions to complex solutions that they're offered. 'the EU cause all your problems' 'those people in that small boat cause all your problems' Etc. Surely you understand any government needs to encourage and support businesses to thrive? They are the backbone of the country, economically and provide the wealth the country needs to develop. This economics 101. You seem to complain about this at every opportunity, as I said and I will say again, the government no matter the colour needs businesses and businesses that sell their service and product overseas are the most valued. You say the electorate are not engaged and I tend to agree, that is after all why we vote for a MP to serve our interests and why we have a government to enact on our wishes and sometimes not our wishes. You holding onto the the media control and collaboration with the government is not allowing you to view a level landscape, you are forever looking up the hill and not liking what you see. No amount of reasoning with you is going to change your conspiracy ideas of government, pr machines, media and big business. I admire your consistency in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is not a backhanded compliment by the way. Okay. Let's simply the question. Why do you think the electorate continually votes against their own interests? Successive Tory governments, Brexit etc. Firstly the electorate voted for a brexit so did not believe it to be against their own interests. Yes! Now we're getting somewhere. Why did the not believe it was against their own interests? The successive tory government I answered above, and I thought it was clear? Tories have served a purpose at every election over the opposition and this is why we have had 13 years of tory government. Go back and read my reasoning and challenge it if you think it is wrong Honestly, I don't think we're understanding eachother. I'm asking why you think people voted against their own interests." They didn't, they wanted out of the EU. What happened after the vote is a different discussion, as is why people wanted to leave the EU ads there were many reasons, some economic, some sovereignty other reasons less savoury. But that was what they voted for, you didn't, I didn't and the difference is I accept more people felt differently to me than as me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years? The majority of the country who are middle of the road preferred the conservative ideas at the time of voting more than labour. It is that simple. If you really want to know why we have had a tory government for so long it is very easy to explain... Labour lost the election under Brown in 2010, recession and a list of things that made them unelectable stacked up. Labour were broken and it has taken years to get themselves back on their feet. Along the way they have had controversial leaders that people didn't like. You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... Moving onto brexit, the tories were really at the end of their rein by the time the 2019 elections came about, they had served a purpose for the traditional red voters of the north who wanted to leave the EU. However they won with an 80 seat majority, due mainly to a lack of trust from those same northern labour voters, they thought the labour party would not see brexit through and seemingly hinting at times of a second referendum, cancelling their votes was not something leave labour voters were willing to gamble on. And here we are, the facts laid out and easy to cross check, but you still insist on blaming the tory government for some kind of mind control that does not serve the people only big money organisations. This was a long way of saying you are wrong, the tory government once in power did exactly what the people wanted and voted for, you simply can't accept that. Interesting view from the Tory side. Basically blaming Labour. And people still hanging on to the brexit turd? Fair enough. But if you look deeper, why do the public want a self serving government with policies that are damaging to them. Like austerity, Brexit etc, while they blatantly serve big corporations and their pals (fast tracking their friends and neighbours PPE start up companies to multi-million pound contracts). I'm arguing it's the Tory PR machine, plus the supporting media. What's the alternative, people like being down trodden? They know their place? I prefer to give them more credit and suggest that the electorate isn't very politically engaged, believe all the simple solutions to complex solutions that they're offered. 'the EU cause all your problems' 'those people in that small boat cause all your problems' Etc. Surely you understand any government needs to encourage and support businesses to thrive? They are the backbone of the country, economically and provide the wealth the country needs to develop. This economics 101. You seem to complain about this at every opportunity, as I said and I will say again, the government no matter the colour needs businesses and businesses that sell their service and product overseas are the most valued. You say the electorate are not engaged and I tend to agree, that is after all why we vote for a MP to serve our interests and why we have a government to enact on our wishes and sometimes not our wishes. You holding onto the the media control and collaboration with the government is not allowing you to view a level landscape, you are forever looking up the hill and not liking what you see. No amount of reasoning with you is going to change your conspiracy ideas of government, pr machines, media and big business. I admire your consistency in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is not a backhanded compliment by the way. Okay. Let's simply the question. Why do you think the electorate continually votes against their own interests? Successive Tory governments, Brexit etc. Firstly the electorate voted for a brexit so did not believe it to be against their own interests. Yes! Now we're getting somewhere. Why did the not believe it was against their own interests? The successive tory government I answered above, and I thought it was clear? Tories have served a purpose at every election over the opposition and this is why we have had 13 years of tory government. Go back and read my reasoning and challenge it if you think it is wrong Honestly, I don't think we're understanding eachother. I'm asking why you think people voted against their own interests. They didn't, they wanted out of the EU. What happened after the vote is a different discussion, as is why people wanted to leave the EU ads there were many reasons, some economic, some sovereignty other reasons less savoury. But that was what they voted for, you didn't, I didn't and the difference is I accept more people felt differently to me than as me. " Or course they felt differently. You're not answering my intended question. We knew Brexit would be shit for British people, British businesses and the economy, while offering no benefits. Why did people think voting for brexit was in their best interests? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years? The majority of the country who are middle of the road preferred the conservative ideas at the time of voting more than labour. It is that simple. If you really want to know why we have had a tory government for so long it is very easy to explain... Labour lost the election under Brown in 2010, recession and a list of things that made them unelectable stacked up. Labour were broken and it has taken years to get themselves back on their feet. Along the way they have had controversial leaders that people didn't like. You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... Moving onto brexit, the tories were really at the end of their rein by the time the 2019 elections came about, they had served a purpose for the traditional red voters of the north who wanted to leave the EU. However they won with an 80 seat majority, due mainly to a lack of trust from those same northern labour voters, they thought the labour party would not see brexit through and seemingly hinting at times of a second referendum, cancelling their votes was not something leave labour voters were willing to gamble on. And here we are, the facts laid out and easy to cross check, but you still insist on blaming the tory government for some kind of mind control that does not serve the people only big money organisations. This was a long way of saying you are wrong, the tory government once in power did exactly what the people wanted and voted for, you simply can't accept that. Interesting view from the Tory side. Basically blaming Labour. And people still hanging on to the brexit turd? Fair enough. But if you look deeper, why do the public want a self serving government with policies that are damaging to them. Like austerity, Brexit etc, while they blatantly serve big corporations and their pals (fast tracking their friends and neighbours PPE start up companies to multi-million pound contracts). I'm arguing it's the Tory PR machine, plus the supporting media. What's the alternative, people like being down trodden? They know their place? I prefer to give them more credit and suggest that the electorate isn't very politically engaged, believe all the simple solutions to complex solutions that they're offered. 'the EU cause all your problems' 'those people in that small boat cause all your problems' Etc. Surely you understand any government needs to encourage and support businesses to thrive? They are the backbone of the country, economically and provide the wealth the country needs to develop. This economics 101. You seem to complain about this at every opportunity, as I said and I will say again, the government no matter the colour needs businesses and businesses that sell their service and product overseas are the most valued. You say the electorate are not engaged and I tend to agree, that is after all why we vote for a MP to serve our interests and why we have a government to enact on our wishes and sometimes not our wishes. You holding onto the the media control and collaboration with the government is not allowing you to view a level landscape, you are forever looking up the hill and not liking what you see. No amount of reasoning with you is going to change your conspiracy ideas of government, pr machines, media and big business. I admire your consistency in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is not a backhanded compliment by the way. Okay. Let's simply the question. Why do you think the electorate continually votes against their own interests? Successive Tory governments, Brexit etc. Firstly the electorate voted for a brexit so did not believe it to be against their own interests. Yes! Now we're getting somewhere. Why did the not believe it was against their own interests? The successive tory government I answered above, and I thought it was clear? Tories have served a purpose at every election over the opposition and this is why we have had 13 years of tory government. Go back and read my reasoning and challenge it if you think it is wrong Honestly, I don't think we're understanding eachother. I'm asking why you think people voted against their own interests. They didn't, they wanted out of the EU. What happened after the vote is a different discussion, as is why people wanted to leave the EU ads there were many reasons, some economic, some sovereignty other reasons less savoury. But that was what they voted for, you didn't, I didn't and the difference is I accept more people felt differently to me than as me. Or course they felt differently. You're not answering my intended question. We knew Brexit would be shit for British people, British businesses and the economy, while offering no benefits. Why did people think voting for brexit was in their best interests?" You knew that, others knew that, others may not have known. People who voted voted for a reason and their reason outweighed your logic. Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. It is not brain washing, it is putting forward arguments for and and against, people make their minds up. I think you are saying people are stupid, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years? The majority of the country who are middle of the road preferred the conservative ideas at the time of voting more than labour. It is that simple. If you really want to know why we have had a tory government for so long it is very easy to explain... Labour lost the election under Brown in 2010, recession and a list of things that made them unelectable stacked up. Labour were broken and it has taken years to get themselves back on their feet. Along the way they have had controversial leaders that people didn't like. You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... Moving onto brexit, the tories were really at the end of their rein by the time the 2019 elections came about, they had served a purpose for the traditional red voters of the north who wanted to leave the EU. However they won with an 80 seat majority, due mainly to a lack of trust from those same northern labour voters, they thought the labour party would not see brexit through and seemingly hinting at times of a second referendum, cancelling their votes was not something leave labour voters were willing to gamble on. And here we are, the facts laid out and easy to cross check, but you still insist on blaming the tory government for some kind of mind control that does not serve the people only big money organisations. This was a long way of saying you are wrong, the tory government once in power did exactly what the people wanted and voted for, you simply can't accept that. Interesting view from the Tory side. Basically blaming Labour. And people still hanging on to the brexit turd? Fair enough. But if you look deeper, why do the public want a self serving government with policies that are damaging to them. Like austerity, Brexit etc, while they blatantly serve big corporations and their pals (fast tracking their friends and neighbours PPE start up companies to multi-million pound contracts). I'm arguing it's the Tory PR machine, plus the supporting media. What's the alternative, people like being down trodden? They know their place? I prefer to give them more credit and suggest that the electorate isn't very politically engaged, believe all the simple solutions to complex solutions that they're offered. 'the EU cause all your problems' 'those people in that small boat cause all your problems' Etc. Surely you understand any government needs to encourage and support businesses to thrive? They are the backbone of the country, economically and provide the wealth the country needs to develop. This economics 101. You seem to complain about this at every opportunity, as I said and I will say again, the government no matter the colour needs businesses and businesses that sell their service and product overseas are the most valued. You say the electorate are not engaged and I tend to agree, that is after all why we vote for a MP to serve our interests and why we have a government to enact on our wishes and sometimes not our wishes. You holding onto the the media control and collaboration with the government is not allowing you to view a level landscape, you are forever looking up the hill and not liking what you see. No amount of reasoning with you is going to change your conspiracy ideas of government, pr machines, media and big business. I admire your consistency in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is not a backhanded compliment by the way. Okay. Let's simply the question. Why do you think the electorate continually votes against their own interests? Successive Tory governments, Brexit etc. Firstly the electorate voted for a brexit so did not believe it to be against their own interests. Yes! Now we're getting somewhere. Why did the not believe it was against their own interests? The successive tory government I answered above, and I thought it was clear? Tories have served a purpose at every election over the opposition and this is why we have had 13 years of tory government. Go back and read my reasoning and challenge it if you think it is wrong Honestly, I don't think we're understanding eachother. I'm asking why you think people voted against their own interests. They didn't, they wanted out of the EU. What happened after the vote is a different discussion, as is why people wanted to leave the EU ads there were many reasons, some economic, some sovereignty other reasons less savoury. But that was what they voted for, you didn't, I didn't and the difference is I accept more people felt differently to me than as me. Or course they felt differently. You're not answering my intended question. We knew Brexit would be shit for British people, British businesses and the economy, while offering no benefits. Why did people think voting for brexit was in their best interests? You knew that, others knew that, others may not have known. " Why not, this is my question to you, why do you think they thought it was in their own interests? " People who voted voted for a reason and their reason outweighed your logic. Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. It is not brain washing, it is putting forward arguments for and and against, people make their minds up. I think you are saying people are stupid, " No, my argument says they're not stupid, they were influenced. Is your argument that they mindlessly voted against their own interests? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years? The majority of the country who are middle of the road preferred the conservative ideas at the time of voting more than labour. It is that simple. If you really want to know why we have had a tory government for so long it is very easy to explain... Labour lost the election under Brown in 2010, recession and a list of things that made them unelectable stacked up. Labour were broken and it has taken years to get themselves back on their feet. Along the way they have had controversial leaders that people didn't like. You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... Moving onto brexit, the tories were really at the end of their rein by the time the 2019 elections came about, they had served a purpose for the traditional red voters of the north who wanted to leave the EU. However they won with an 80 seat majority, due mainly to a lack of trust from those same northern labour voters, they thought the labour party would not see brexit through and seemingly hinting at times of a second referendum, cancelling their votes was not something leave labour voters were willing to gamble on. And here we are, the facts laid out and easy to cross check, but you still insist on blaming the tory government for some kind of mind control that does not serve the people only big money organisations. This was a long way of saying you are wrong, the tory government once in power did exactly what the people wanted and voted for, you simply can't accept that. Interesting view from the Tory side. Basically blaming Labour. And people still hanging on to the brexit turd? Fair enough. But if you look deeper, why do the public want a self serving government with policies that are damaging to them. Like austerity, Brexit etc, while they blatantly serve big corporations and their pals (fast tracking their friends and neighbours PPE start up companies to multi-million pound contracts). I'm arguing it's the Tory PR machine, plus the supporting media. What's the alternative, people like being down trodden? They know their place? I prefer to give them more credit and suggest that the electorate isn't very politically engaged, believe all the simple solutions to complex solutions that they're offered. 'the EU cause all your problems' 'those people in that small boat cause all your problems' Etc. Surely you understand any government needs to encourage and support businesses to thrive? They are the backbone of the country, economically and provide the wealth the country needs to develop. This economics 101. You seem to complain about this at every opportunity, as I said and I will say again, the government no matter the colour needs businesses and businesses that sell their service and product overseas are the most valued. You say the electorate are not engaged and I tend to agree, that is after all why we vote for a MP to serve our interests and why we have a government to enact on our wishes and sometimes not our wishes. You holding onto the the media control and collaboration with the government is not allowing you to view a level landscape, you are forever looking up the hill and not liking what you see. No amount of reasoning with you is going to change your conspiracy ideas of government, pr machines, media and big business. I admire your consistency in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is not a backhanded compliment by the way. Okay. Let's simply the question. Why do you think the electorate continually votes against their own interests? Successive Tory governments, Brexit etc. Firstly the electorate voted for a brexit so did not believe it to be against their own interests. Yes! Now we're getting somewhere. Why did the not believe it was against their own interests? The successive tory government I answered above, and I thought it was clear? Tories have served a purpose at every election over the opposition and this is why we have had 13 years of tory government. Go back and read my reasoning and challenge it if you think it is wrong Honestly, I don't think we're understanding eachother. I'm asking why you think people voted against their own interests. They didn't, they wanted out of the EU. What happened after the vote is a different discussion, as is why people wanted to leave the EU ads there were many reasons, some economic, some sovereignty other reasons less savoury. But that was what they voted for, you didn't, I didn't and the difference is I accept more people felt differently to me than as me. Or course they felt differently. You're not answering my intended question. We knew Brexit would be shit for British people, British businesses and the economy, while offering no benefits. Why did people think voting for brexit was in their best interests? You knew that, others knew that, others may not have known. Why not, this is my question to you, why do you think they thought it was in their own interests? People who voted voted for a reason and their reason outweighed your logic. Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. It is not brain washing, it is putting forward arguments for and and against, people make their minds up. I think you are saying people are stupid, No, my argument says they're not stupid, they were influenced. Is your argument that they mindlessly voted against their own interests? " Nope, I say they voted how they wanted to based on their beliefs | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years? The majority of the country who are middle of the road preferred the conservative ideas at the time of voting more than labour. It is that simple. If you really want to know why we have had a tory government for so long it is very easy to explain... Labour lost the election under Brown in 2010, recession and a list of things that made them unelectable stacked up. Labour were broken and it has taken years to get themselves back on their feet. Along the way they have had controversial leaders that people didn't like. You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... Moving onto brexit, the tories were really at the end of their rein by the time the 2019 elections came about, they had served a purpose for the traditional red voters of the north who wanted to leave the EU. However they won with an 80 seat majority, due mainly to a lack of trust from those same northern labour voters, they thought the labour party would not see brexit through and seemingly hinting at times of a second referendum, cancelling their votes was not something leave labour voters were willing to gamble on. And here we are, the facts laid out and easy to cross check, but you still insist on blaming the tory government for some kind of mind control that does not serve the people only big money organisations. This was a long way of saying you are wrong, the tory government once in power did exactly what the people wanted and voted for, you simply can't accept that. Interesting view from the Tory side. Basically blaming Labour. And people still hanging on to the brexit turd? Fair enough. But if you look deeper, why do the public want a self serving government with policies that are damaging to them. Like austerity, Brexit etc, while they blatantly serve big corporations and their pals (fast tracking their friends and neighbours PPE start up companies to multi-million pound contracts). I'm arguing it's the Tory PR machine, plus the supporting media. What's the alternative, people like being down trodden? They know their place? I prefer to give them more credit and suggest that the electorate isn't very politically engaged, believe all the simple solutions to complex solutions that they're offered. 'the EU cause all your problems' 'those people in that small boat cause all your problems' Etc. Surely you understand any government needs to encourage and support businesses to thrive? They are the backbone of the country, economically and provide the wealth the country needs to develop. This economics 101. You seem to complain about this at every opportunity, as I said and I will say again, the government no matter the colour needs businesses and businesses that sell their service and product overseas are the most valued. You say the electorate are not engaged and I tend to agree, that is after all why we vote for a MP to serve our interests and why we have a government to enact on our wishes and sometimes not our wishes. You holding onto the the media control and collaboration with the government is not allowing you to view a level landscape, you are forever looking up the hill and not liking what you see. No amount of reasoning with you is going to change your conspiracy ideas of government, pr machines, media and big business. I admire your consistency in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is not a backhanded compliment by the way. Okay. Let's simply the question. Why do you think the electorate continually votes against their own interests? Successive Tory governments, Brexit etc. Firstly the electorate voted for a brexit so did not believe it to be against their own interests. Yes! Now we're getting somewhere. Why did the not believe it was against their own interests? The successive tory government I answered above, and I thought it was clear? Tories have served a purpose at every election over the opposition and this is why we have had 13 years of tory government. Go back and read my reasoning and challenge it if you think it is wrong Honestly, I don't think we're understanding eachother. I'm asking why you think people voted against their own interests. They didn't, they wanted out of the EU. What happened after the vote is a different discussion, as is why people wanted to leave the EU ads there were many reasons, some economic, some sovereignty other reasons less savoury. But that was what they voted for, you didn't, I didn't and the difference is I accept more people felt differently to me than as me. Or course they felt differently. You're not answering my intended question. We knew Brexit would be shit for British people, British businesses and the economy, while offering no benefits. Why did people think voting for brexit was in their best interests? You knew that, others knew that, others may not have known. Why not, this is my question to you, why do you think they thought it was in their own interests? People who voted voted for a reason and their reason outweighed your logic. Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. It is not brain washing, it is putting forward arguments for and and against, people make their minds up. I think you are saying people are stupid, No, my argument says they're not stupid, they were influenced. Is your argument that they mindlessly voted against their own interests? Nope, I say they voted how they wanted to based on their beliefs " Why did people have those beliefs that are contrary to reality? That's the question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years? The majority of the country who are middle of the road preferred the conservative ideas at the time of voting more than labour. It is that simple. If you really want to know why we have had a tory government for so long it is very easy to explain... Labour lost the election under Brown in 2010, recession and a list of things that made them unelectable stacked up. Labour were broken and it has taken years to get themselves back on their feet. Along the way they have had controversial leaders that people didn't like. You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... Moving onto brexit, the tories were really at the end of their rein by the time the 2019 elections came about, they had served a purpose for the traditional red voters of the north who wanted to leave the EU. However they won with an 80 seat majority, due mainly to a lack of trust from those same northern labour voters, they thought the labour party would not see brexit through and seemingly hinting at times of a second referendum, cancelling their votes was not something leave labour voters were willing to gamble on. And here we are, the facts laid out and easy to cross check, but you still insist on blaming the tory government for some kind of mind control that does not serve the people only big money organisations. This was a long way of saying you are wrong, the tory government once in power did exactly what the people wanted and voted for, you simply can't accept that. Interesting view from the Tory side. Basically blaming Labour. And people still hanging on to the brexit turd? Fair enough. But if you look deeper, why do the public want a self serving government with policies that are damaging to them. Like austerity, Brexit etc, while they blatantly serve big corporations and their pals (fast tracking their friends and neighbours PPE start up companies to multi-million pound contracts). I'm arguing it's the Tory PR machine, plus the supporting media. What's the alternative, people like being down trodden? They know their place? I prefer to give them more credit and suggest that the electorate isn't very politically engaged, believe all the simple solutions to complex solutions that they're offered. 'the EU cause all your problems' 'those people in that small boat cause all your problems' Etc. Surely you understand any government needs to encourage and support businesses to thrive? They are the backbone of the country, economically and provide the wealth the country needs to develop. This economics 101. You seem to complain about this at every opportunity, as I said and I will say again, the government no matter the colour needs businesses and businesses that sell their service and product overseas are the most valued. You say the electorate are not engaged and I tend to agree, that is after all why we vote for a MP to serve our interests and why we have a government to enact on our wishes and sometimes not our wishes. You holding onto the the media control and collaboration with the government is not allowing you to view a level landscape, you are forever looking up the hill and not liking what you see. No amount of reasoning with you is going to change your conspiracy ideas of government, pr machines, media and big business. I admire your consistency in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is not a backhanded compliment by the way. Okay. Let's simply the question. Why do you think the electorate continually votes against their own interests? Successive Tory governments, Brexit etc. Firstly the electorate voted for a brexit so did not believe it to be against their own interests. Yes! Now we're getting somewhere. Why did the not believe it was against their own interests? The successive tory government I answered above, and I thought it was clear? Tories have served a purpose at every election over the opposition and this is why we have had 13 years of tory government. Go back and read my reasoning and challenge it if you think it is wrong Honestly, I don't think we're understanding eachother. I'm asking why you think people voted against their own interests. They didn't, they wanted out of the EU. What happened after the vote is a different discussion, as is why people wanted to leave the EU ads there were many reasons, some economic, some sovereignty other reasons less savoury. But that was what they voted for, you didn't, I didn't and the difference is I accept more people felt differently to me than as me. Or course they felt differently. You're not answering my intended question. We knew Brexit would be shit for British people, British businesses and the economy, while offering no benefits. Why did people think voting for brexit was in their best interests? You knew that, others knew that, others may not have known. Why not, this is my question to you, why do you think they thought it was in their own interests? People who voted voted for a reason and their reason outweighed your logic. Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. It is not brain washing, it is putting forward arguments for and and against, people make their minds up. I think you are saying people are stupid, No, my argument says they're not stupid, they were influenced. Is your argument that they mindlessly voted against their own interests? Nope, I say they voted how they wanted to based on their beliefs Why did people have those beliefs that are contrary to reality? That's the question." The circle is closed.... Brexit is for another thread, I'm tired of going over the same old thing... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The centre, by definition is where the majority of people are. If you look at the world and think everyone is right wing then you are on the left. If you look at the world and think everyone is left wing then you are on the right. If you look at the world and think everyone is bat shit crazy and ideologically mad then you are probably in the centre." Exactly!!! It depends where you are as to where others appear to be. The theory of relativity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view." I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn’t matter if we have left, right and far elements of the both, the electorate that decides the government of the country will be those that are middle of the road. The end Then how come we've had a right wing government that serves the needs of corporations over the needs of British people for the past 13 years? The majority of the country who are middle of the road preferred the conservative ideas at the time of voting more than labour. It is that simple. If you really want to know why we have had a tory government for so long it is very easy to explain... Labour lost the election under Brown in 2010, recession and a list of things that made them unelectable stacked up. Labour were broken and it has taken years to get themselves back on their feet. Along the way they have had controversial leaders that people didn't like. You will now say it was the media that brain washed the public, no it wasn't we have been through that and it is shown on another thread that the media doesn't lean only one way... Moving onto brexit, the tories were really at the end of their rein by the time the 2019 elections came about, they had served a purpose for the traditional red voters of the north who wanted to leave the EU. However they won with an 80 seat majority, due mainly to a lack of trust from those same northern labour voters, they thought the labour party would not see brexit through and seemingly hinting at times of a second referendum, cancelling their votes was not something leave labour voters were willing to gamble on. And here we are, the facts laid out and easy to cross check, but you still insist on blaming the tory government for some kind of mind control that does not serve the people only big money organisations. This was a long way of saying you are wrong, the tory government once in power did exactly what the people wanted and voted for, you simply can't accept that. Interesting view from the Tory side. Basically blaming Labour. And people still hanging on to the brexit turd? Fair enough. But if you look deeper, why do the public want a self serving government with policies that are damaging to them. Like austerity, Brexit etc, while they blatantly serve big corporations and their pals (fast tracking their friends and neighbours PPE start up companies to multi-million pound contracts). I'm arguing it's the Tory PR machine, plus the supporting media. What's the alternative, people like being down trodden? They know their place? I prefer to give them more credit and suggest that the electorate isn't very politically engaged, believe all the simple solutions to complex solutions that they're offered. 'the EU cause all your problems' 'those people in that small boat cause all your problems' Etc. Surely you understand any government needs to encourage and support businesses to thrive? They are the backbone of the country, economically and provide the wealth the country needs to develop. This economics 101. You seem to complain about this at every opportunity, as I said and I will say again, the government no matter the colour needs businesses and businesses that sell their service and product overseas are the most valued. You say the electorate are not engaged and I tend to agree, that is after all why we vote for a MP to serve our interests and why we have a government to enact on our wishes and sometimes not our wishes. You holding onto the the media control and collaboration with the government is not allowing you to view a level landscape, you are forever looking up the hill and not liking what you see. No amount of reasoning with you is going to change your conspiracy ideas of government, pr machines, media and big business. I admire your consistency in the face of what I consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is not a backhanded compliment by the way. Okay. Let's simply the question. Why do you think the electorate continually votes against their own interests? Successive Tory governments, Brexit etc. Firstly the electorate voted for a brexit so did not believe it to be against their own interests. Yes! Now we're getting somewhere. Why did the not believe it was against their own interests? The successive tory government I answered above, and I thought it was clear? Tories have served a purpose at every election over the opposition and this is why we have had 13 years of tory government. Go back and read my reasoning and challenge it if you think it is wrong Honestly, I don't think we're understanding eachother. I'm asking why you think people voted against their own interests. They didn't, they wanted out of the EU. What happened after the vote is a different discussion, as is why people wanted to leave the EU ads there were many reasons, some economic, some sovereignty other reasons less savoury. But that was what they voted for, you didn't, I didn't and the difference is I accept more people felt differently to me than as me. Or course they felt differently. You're not answering my intended question. We knew Brexit would be shit for British people, British businesses and the economy, while offering no benefits. Why did people think voting for brexit was in their best interests? You knew that, others knew that, others may not have known. Why not, this is my question to you, why do you think they thought it was in their own interests? People who voted voted for a reason and their reason outweighed your logic. Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. It is not brain washing, it is putting forward arguments for and and against, people make their minds up. I think you are saying people are stupid, No, my argument says they're not stupid, they were influenced. Is your argument that they mindlessly voted against their own interests? Nope, I say they voted how they wanted to based on their beliefs Why did people have those beliefs that are contrary to reality? That's the question. The circle is closed.... Brexit is for another thread, I'm tired of going over the same old thing... " Fair enough. It's okay to not have an opinion. But not sure why you always have a go at me for mine without offering an alternative. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them." This is my opinion. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. But aside from critisism, no one seems to offer an alternative theory. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them." As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. " Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. " People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests?" Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad?" Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. " I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. " You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. " What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion?" How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others ". Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal. Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests? Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case."There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand. I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense. "So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view? I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be."I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand. "But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be."There is nowhere to go to. You believe 100% that people cannot make up their minds and form opinions contrary to your own, or to want an event or action to happen regardless of the potential for a negative outcome. Nobody is disagreeing that the media play a part in forming peoples opinions, but the part you are missing here, is people reading such media, believe in certain things, values and the media they consume will dine out on those views to keep the readership up and the advertising coming in. This is not brainwashing, it is a corporate giving its customer what they want | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?"You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
There is nowhere to go to.
You believe 100% that people cannot make up their minds and form opinions contrary to your own, or to want an event or action to happen regardless of the potential for a negative outcome.
Nobody is disagreeing that the media play a part in forming peoples opinions, but the part you are missing here, is people reading such media, believe in certain things, values and the media they consume will dine out on those views to keep the readership up and the advertising coming in.
This is not brainwashing, it is a corporate giving its customer what they want"You made up "brainwashing" and that I "believe 100% that people cannot make up their minds" Why is this about me? It's a simple question, that seems to upset you guys a lot. Yet you don't want to offer an opinion on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer. "You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question. If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?"I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence. I said this to you earlier: "Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall.""Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?"Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play? I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you "I'll take that as a yes. Shame because it would be an interesting discussion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You made up "brainwashing" and that I "believe 100% that people cannot make up their minds" Why is this about me? It's a simple question, that seems to upset you guys a lot. Yet you don't want to offer an opinion on. " Opinions have been offered and ignored. Your history of posting contains the elements of describing the public as being brainwashed and I have been on this forum long enough to have read your views many times. Equally you believe I’m a right wing Tory, because I have different views to you, and I’ve told you many times that’s not the case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You made up "brainwashing" and that I "believe 100% that people cannot make up their minds" Why is this about me? It's a simple question, that seems to upset you guys a lot. Yet you don't want to offer an opinion on. Opinions have been offered and ignored. Your history of posting contains the elements of describing the public as being brainwashed and I have been on this forum long enough to have read your views many times. Equally you believe I’m a right wing Tory, because I have different views to you, and I’ve told you many times that’s not the case. " Nope. I've never said anyone is brainwashed. I've no idea where you sit on the political spectrum. If you want to discuss the topic I am happy to return to the question of why people vote en masse against their own interests. If not, we can drop it and get on with life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion. "You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so. As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially. I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest. "Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me. Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it. It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much. Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it."If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests. That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore. You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people. Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?"You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks. "If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests." But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?
You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks.
"If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests."
But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"?
"I have no idea why it would be in their interest, we can go with 'they didn't want them as neighbours, they no longer are their neighbours'. Fuck me mate, not everything is as you see it. You're obviously trying to argue on an economic level, with that I'd agree but not everyone voted to leave for economics reasons. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The posts in the Media Reach thread got me thinking about perceptions (and our self perceptions) on what is left-centre-right. It is clear that our own position on that spectrum influences where we think the centre line is drawn. I see people telling others what they are regularly. I have to wonder what criteria people on here use to come to those conclusions? For me the centre (or a centrist) is a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. They are willing to take and support both socialist and capitalist ideas. To me it seems discussion has become so binary and tribalist that many only now see left or right and cannot seem to accept that some people straddle that line. Clearly there will be a sub spectrum with the “centrist territory” with centre/left and centre/right. Some of us have completed that online test (sorry cannot remember name right now) which was interesting but as something clearly developed through an American lens, it isn’t fully reflective of the UK. In my mind the spectrum is this -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 With the centre ground being -2 to +2 Communism -10 Fascism +10 Everything else in between (not going to type it out). So what defines a centrist for you? What policies would they advocate that labels them centrist rather than left or right? Is there a tolerance (ie some centrist will have more left than right policies and vice versa) or do they have to all be totally consistent (and only therefore be “0” on that scale?) " It’s not a straight line from -10 to plus 10 it’s a circle where far right joins far left to the degree there is nothing separating them Far right and far left both believe in the state over the rights of the individual for the benefit of the state Basically it’s about control of peoples lives for the ego rush of the biggest bully in the playground | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?
You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks.
"If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests."
But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"?
I have no idea why it would be in their interest, we can go with 'they didn't want them as neighbours, they no longer are their neighbours'. Fuck me mate, not everything is as you see it.
You're obviously trying to argue on an economic level, with that I'd agree but not everyone voted to leave for economics reasons. "Please try to quit the person attacks. Why don't they want them as neighbours? (rhetorical question). We're approaching the point I'm making, in your example, they have been influenced somehow to not like Europeans. My opinion is still that someone who has been convinced they don't want to live next to Europeans has been influenced to such a stupid opinion, and has voted against their own interests in the small picture (living near foreigners, who most likely are nice people, being foreign has no impact on their niceness), and in the overall picture of the impacts of brexit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?
You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks.
"If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests."
But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"?
I have no idea why it would be in their interest, we can go with 'they didn't want them as neighbours, they no longer are their neighbours'. Fuck me mate, not everything is as you see it.
You're obviously trying to argue on an economic level, with that I'd agree but not everyone voted to leave for economics reasons.
Please try to quit the person attacks.
Why don't they want them as neighbours? (rhetorical question). We're approaching the point I'm making, in your example, they have been influenced somehow to not like Europeans.
My opinion is still that someone who has been convinced they don't want to live next to Europeans has been influenced to such a stupid opinion, and has voted against their own interests in the small picture (living near foreigners, who most likely are nice people, being foreign has no impact on their niceness), and in the overall picture of the impacts of brexit. "There was no personal attack in my last reply. Stop playing the victim. How do you know they were influenced to not like them? They may have had numerous run ins with then over a period of time. You could get that with any neighbour. They have have thought 'ill vote to leave and get rid of them that way' I've said it many times. None of us know the reasonings or motivations for anyone else's vote, until we do, your question is nonsense. There is no conspiracy or brainwashing happening. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. " Just saw you replied to me. Not sure I have seen anyone in this thread using the term brainwashing before this post? Did Johnny? I didn’t see it! Brainwashing would be too strong a word but it is undeniable that people are more easily influenced than they would like to think. It is why advertising works! A lot of science sits behind advertising just as it does with propaganda. The Nazis knew this very well (just to make an attempt at tying this very frayed thread back together). If someone spends decades consuming a specific media source, their thinking will be influenced by that media source. The idea that we all somehow have complete agency over our own thoughts and ideas is very naive. It is why echo chambers (especially social media) are so dangerous and a threat to critical thinking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Just saw you replied to me. Not sure I have seen anyone in this thread using the term brainwashing before this post? Did Johnny? I didn’t see it! Brainwashing would be too strong a word but it is undeniable that people are more easily influenced than they would like to think. It is why advertising works! A lot of science sits behind advertising just as it does with propaganda. The Nazis knew this very well (just to make an attempt at tying this very frayed thread back together). If someone spends decades consuming a specific media source, their thinking will be influenced by that media source. The idea that we all somehow have complete agency over our own thoughts and ideas is very naive. It is why echo chambers (especially social media) are so dangerous and a threat to critical thinking." No one used 'brainwashing' until I did. My opinion is that some people allude to people being brainwashed, quite clearly at times. Of course media has influence over people, I don't think it has as much influence as the credit its given though, maybe that's me looking at it from a personal perspective. I certainly don't remember saying that it has no influence so not sure where any naivety comes into play. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?
You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks.
"If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests."
But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"?
I have no idea why it would be in their interest, we can go with 'they didn't want them as neighbours, they no longer are their neighbours'. Fuck me mate, not everything is as you see it.
You're obviously trying to argue on an economic level, with that I'd agree but not everyone voted to leave for economics reasons.
Please try to quit the person attacks.
Why don't they want them as neighbours? (rhetorical question). We're approaching the point I'm making, in your example, they have been influenced somehow to not like Europeans.
My opinion is still that someone who has been convinced they don't want to live next to Europeans has been influenced to such a stupid opinion, and has voted against their own interests in the small picture (living near foreigners, who most likely are nice people, being foreign has no impact on their niceness), and in the overall picture of the impacts of brexit.
There was no personal attack in my last reply. Stop playing the victim.
How do you know they were influenced to not like them?
They may have had numerous run ins with then over a period of time. You could get that with any neighbour. They have have thought 'ill vote to leave and get rid of them that way'
I've said it many times. None of us know the reasonings or motivations for anyone else's vote, until we do, your question is nonsense.
There is no conspiracy or brainwashing happening. "Please just let go the personal attacks. And then the gaslighting telling me I'm playing the victim. You and the other chap are the only people talking about brainwashing. Not me. So your suggestion for people voting against their own interests, isn't that they've been influenced by the media or government PR but that that might not like foreigners because they had run ins with some whom they live near. As an example of the type of reasoning? Fair enough. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?
You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks.
"If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests."
But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"?
I have no idea why it would be in their interest, we can go with 'they didn't want them as neighbours, they no longer are their neighbours'. Fuck me mate, not everything is as you see it.
You're obviously trying to argue on an economic level, with that I'd agree but not everyone voted to leave for economics reasons.
Please try to quit the person attacks.
Why don't they want them as neighbours? (rhetorical question). We're approaching the point I'm making, in your example, they have been influenced somehow to not like Europeans.
My opinion is still that someone who has been convinced they don't want to live next to Europeans has been influenced to such a stupid opinion, and has voted against their own interests in the small picture (living near foreigners, who most likely are nice people, being foreign has no impact on their niceness), and in the overall picture of the impacts of brexit.
There was no personal attack in my last reply. Stop playing the victim.
How do you know they were influenced to not like them?
They may have had numerous run ins with then over a period of time. You could get that with any neighbour. They have have thought 'ill vote to leave and get rid of them that way'
I've said it many times. None of us know the reasonings or motivations for anyone else's vote, until we do, your question is nonsense.
There is no conspiracy or brainwashing happening.
Please just let go the personal attacks. And then the gaslighting telling me I'm playing the victim.
You and the other chap are the only people talking about brainwashing. Not me.
So your suggestion for people voting against their own interests, isn't that they've been influenced by the media or government PR but that that might not like foreigners because they had run ins with some whom they live near. As an example of the type of reasoning?
Fair enough. "Stop trying to bait me. It won't work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?
You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks.
"If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests."
But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"?
I have no idea why it would be in their interest, we can go with 'they didn't want them as neighbours, they no longer are their neighbours'. Fuck me mate, not everything is as you see it.
You're obviously trying to argue on an economic level, with that I'd agree but not everyone voted to leave for economics reasons.
Please try to quit the person attacks.
Why don't they want them as neighbours? (rhetorical question). We're approaching the point I'm making, in your example, they have been influenced somehow to not like Europeans.
My opinion is still that someone who has been convinced they don't want to live next to Europeans has been influenced to such a stupid opinion, and has voted against their own interests in the small picture (living near foreigners, who most likely are nice people, being foreign has no impact on their niceness), and in the overall picture of the impacts of brexit.
There was no personal attack in my last reply. Stop playing the victim.
How do you know they were influenced to not like them?
They may have had numerous run ins with then over a period of time. You could get that with any neighbour. They have have thought 'ill vote to leave and get rid of them that way'
I've said it many times. None of us know the reasonings or motivations for anyone else's vote, until we do, your question is nonsense.
There is no conspiracy or brainwashing happening.
Please just let go the personal attacks. And then the gaslighting telling me I'm playing the victim.
You and the other chap are the only people talking about brainwashing. Not me.
So your suggestion for people voting against their own interests, isn't that they've been influenced by the media or government PR but that that might not like foreigners because they had run ins with some whom they live near. As an example of the type of reasoning?
Fair enough.
Stop trying to bait me. It won't work. "Trying to understand your point, it's been a long road to get here. No baiting going on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?
You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks.
"If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests."
But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"?
I have no idea why it would be in their interest, we can go with 'they didn't want them as neighbours, they no longer are their neighbours'. Fuck me mate, not everything is as you see it.
You're obviously trying to argue on an economic level, with that I'd agree but not everyone voted to leave for economics reasons.
Please try to quit the person attacks.
Why don't they want them as neighbours? (rhetorical question). We're approaching the point I'm making, in your example, they have been influenced somehow to not like Europeans.
My opinion is still that someone who has been convinced they don't want to live next to Europeans has been influenced to such a stupid opinion, and has voted against their own interests in the small picture (living near foreigners, who most likely are nice people, being foreign has no impact on their niceness), and in the overall picture of the impacts of brexit.
There was no personal attack in my last reply. Stop playing the victim.
How do you know they were influenced to not like them?
They may have had numerous run ins with then over a period of time. You could get that with any neighbour. They have have thought 'ill vote to leave and get rid of them that way'
I've said it many times. None of us know the reasonings or motivations for anyone else's vote, until we do, your question is nonsense.
There is no conspiracy or brainwashing happening.
Please just let go the personal attacks. And then the gaslighting telling me I'm playing the victim.
You and the other chap are the only people talking about brainwashing. Not me.
So your suggestion for people voting against their own interests, isn't that they've been influenced by the media or government PR but that that might not like foreigners because they had run ins with some whom they live near. As an example of the type of reasoning?
Fair enough.
Stop trying to bait me. It won't work.
Trying to understand your point, it's been a long road to get here.
No baiting going on."Just as there's no personal attacks going on. I don't know how many time I have to say it, this'll be the last time. You do not know the reasoning or motivation for anyone voting as they did. Ergo, you cannot possibly say its against their interest. Its impossible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?
You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks.
"If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests."
But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"?
I have no idea why it would be in their interest, we can go with 'they didn't want them as neighbours, they no longer are their neighbours'. Fuck me mate, not everything is as you see it.
You're obviously trying to argue on an economic level, with that I'd agree but not everyone voted to leave for economics reasons.
Please try to quit the person attacks.
Why don't they want them as neighbours? (rhetorical question). We're approaching the point I'm making, in your example, they have been influenced somehow to not like Europeans.
My opinion is still that someone who has been convinced they don't want to live next to Europeans has been influenced to such a stupid opinion, and has voted against their own interests in the small picture (living near foreigners, who most likely are nice people, being foreign has no impact on their niceness), and in the overall picture of the impacts of brexit.
There was no personal attack in my last reply. Stop playing the victim.
How do you know they were influenced to not like them?
They may have had numerous run ins with then over a period of time. You could get that with any neighbour. They have have thought 'ill vote to leave and get rid of them that way'
I've said it many times. None of us know the reasonings or motivations for anyone else's vote, until we do, your question is nonsense.
There is no conspiracy or brainwashing happening.
Please just let go the personal attacks. And then the gaslighting telling me I'm playing the victim.
You and the other chap are the only people talking about brainwashing. Not me.
So your suggestion for people voting against their own interests, isn't that they've been influenced by the media or government PR but that that might not like foreigners because they had run ins with some whom they live near. As an example of the type of reasoning?
Fair enough.
Stop trying to bait me. It won't work.
Trying to understand your point, it's been a long road to get here.
No baiting going on.
Just as there's no personal attacks going on.
I don't know how many time I have to say it, this'll be the last time.
You do not know the reasoning or motivation for anyone voting as they did. Ergo, you cannot possibly say its against their interest. Its impossible. "The reasoning for voting for something like Brexit isn't directly related to it being in someone's interest. In the example you gave, someone may have voted for Brexit because they don't want European neighbours. They still suffer the consequences of brexit. Same as the rest of us. The European people weren't horrible people because they're not British. They voted against their own interests. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?
You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks.
"If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests."
But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"?
I have no idea why it would be in their interest, we can go with 'they didn't want them as neighbours, they no longer are their neighbours'. Fuck me mate, not everything is as you see it.
You're obviously trying to argue on an economic level, with that I'd agree but not everyone voted to leave for economics reasons.
Please try to quit the person attacks.
Why don't they want them as neighbours? (rhetorical question). We're approaching the point I'm making, in your example, they have been influenced somehow to not like Europeans.
My opinion is still that someone who has been convinced they don't want to live next to Europeans has been influenced to such a stupid opinion, and has voted against their own interests in the small picture (living near foreigners, who most likely are nice people, being foreign has no impact on their niceness), and in the overall picture of the impacts of brexit.
There was no personal attack in my last reply. Stop playing the victim.
How do you know they were influenced to not like them?
They may have had numerous run ins with then over a period of time. You could get that with any neighbour. They have have thought 'ill vote to leave and get rid of them that way'
I've said it many times. None of us know the reasonings or motivations for anyone else's vote, until we do, your question is nonsense.
There is no conspiracy or brainwashing happening.
Please just let go the personal attacks. And then the gaslighting telling me I'm playing the victim.
You and the other chap are the only people talking about brainwashing. Not me.
So your suggestion for people voting against their own interests, isn't that they've been influenced by the media or government PR but that that might not like foreigners because they had run ins with some whom they live near. As an example of the type of reasoning?
Fair enough.
Stop trying to bait me. It won't work.
Trying to understand your point, it's been a long road to get here.
No baiting going on.
Just as there's no personal attacks going on.
I don't know how many time I have to say it, this'll be the last time.
You do not know the reasoning or motivation for anyone voting as they did. Ergo, you cannot possibly say its against their interest. Its impossible.
The reasoning for voting for something like Brexit isn't directly related to it being in someone's interest.
In the example you gave, someone may have voted for Brexit because they don't want European neighbours.
They still suffer the consequences of brexit. Same as the rest of us. The European people weren't horrible people because they're not British.
They voted against their own interests. "What's happening here is you're refusing to understand their may be people with different interests than you. As I said, if we're talking purely economic reason then I'd agree but Brexit was not purely about economic reasons. Maybe we've found why you struggle so much to understand? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?
You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks.
"If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests."
But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"?
I have no idea why it would be in their interest, we can go with 'they didn't want them as neighbours, they no longer are their neighbours'. Fuck me mate, not everything is as you see it.
You're obviously trying to argue on an economic level, with that I'd agree but not everyone voted to leave for economics reasons.
Please try to quit the person attacks.
Why don't they want them as neighbours? (rhetorical question). We're approaching the point I'm making, in your example, they have been influenced somehow to not like Europeans.
My opinion is still that someone who has been convinced they don't want to live next to Europeans has been influenced to such a stupid opinion, and has voted against their own interests in the small picture (living near foreigners, who most likely are nice people, being foreign has no impact on their niceness), and in the overall picture of the impacts of brexit.
There was no personal attack in my last reply. Stop playing the victim.
How do you know they were influenced to not like them?
They may have had numerous run ins with then over a period of time. You could get that with any neighbour. They have have thought 'ill vote to leave and get rid of them that way'
I've said it many times. None of us know the reasonings or motivations for anyone else's vote, until we do, your question is nonsense.
There is no conspiracy or brainwashing happening.
Please just let go the personal attacks. And then the gaslighting telling me I'm playing the victim.
You and the other chap are the only people talking about brainwashing. Not me.
So your suggestion for people voting against their own interests, isn't that they've been influenced by the media or government PR but that that might not like foreigners because they had run ins with some whom they live near. As an example of the type of reasoning?
Fair enough.
Stop trying to bait me. It won't work.
Trying to understand your point, it's been a long road to get here.
No baiting going on.
Just as there's no personal attacks going on.
I don't know how many time I have to say it, this'll be the last time.
You do not know the reasoning or motivation for anyone voting as they did. Ergo, you cannot possibly say its against their interest. Its impossible.
The reasoning for voting for something like Brexit isn't directly related to it being in someone's interest.
In the example you gave, someone may have voted for Brexit because they don't want European neighbours.
They still suffer the consequences of brexit. Same as the rest of us. The European people weren't horrible people because they're not British.
They voted against their own interests.
What's happening here is you're refusing to understand their may be people with different interests than you.
As I said, if we're talking purely economic reason then I'd agree but Brexit was not purely about economic reasons.
Maybe we've found why you struggle so much to understand?"Nope. I just want to dive deeper into your example. To me, this person is still voting against their own interests, they might not know it. But they are. Not living next to a European person might be their aim, but voting to leave the EU has disadvantaged them in 1000 other ways, and their European neighbours might not even have to leave. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?
You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks.
"If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests."
But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"?
I have no idea why it would be in their interest, we can go with 'they didn't want them as neighbours, they no longer are their neighbours'. Fuck me mate, not everything is as you see it.
You're obviously trying to argue on an economic level, with that I'd agree but not everyone voted to leave for economics reasons.
Please try to quit the person attacks.
Why don't they want them as neighbours? (rhetorical question). We're approaching the point I'm making, in your example, they have been influenced somehow to not like Europeans.
My opinion is still that someone who has been convinced they don't want to live next to Europeans has been influenced to such a stupid opinion, and has voted against their own interests in the small picture (living near foreigners, who most likely are nice people, being foreign has no impact on their niceness), and in the overall picture of the impacts of brexit.
There was no personal attack in my last reply. Stop playing the victim.
How do you know they were influenced to not like them?
They may have had numerous run ins with then over a period of time. You could get that with any neighbour. They have have thought 'ill vote to leave and get rid of them that way'
I've said it many times. None of us know the reasonings or motivations for anyone else's vote, until we do, your question is nonsense.
There is no conspiracy or brainwashing happening.
Please just let go the personal attacks. And then the gaslighting telling me I'm playing the victim.
You and the other chap are the only people talking about brainwashing. Not me.
So your suggestion for people voting against their own interests, isn't that they've been influenced by the media or government PR but that that might not like foreigners because they had run ins with some whom they live near. As an example of the type of reasoning?
Fair enough.
Stop trying to bait me. It won't work.
Trying to understand your point, it's been a long road to get here.
No baiting going on.
Just as there's no personal attacks going on.
I don't know how many time I have to say it, this'll be the last time.
You do not know the reasoning or motivation for anyone voting as they did. Ergo, you cannot possibly say its against their interest. Its impossible.
The reasoning for voting for something like Brexit isn't directly related to it being in someone's interest.
In the example you gave, someone may have voted for Brexit because they don't want European neighbours.
They still suffer the consequences of brexit. Same as the rest of us. The European people weren't horrible people because they're not British.
They voted against their own interests.
What's happening here is you're refusing to understand their may be people with different interests than you.
As I said, if we're talking purely economic reason then I'd agree but Brexit was not purely about economic reasons.
Maybe we've found why you struggle so much to understand?
Nope.
I just want to dive deeper into your example. To me, this person is still voting against their own interests, they might not know it. But they are. Not living next to a European person might be their aim, but voting to leave the EU has disadvantaged them in 1000 other ways, and their European neighbours might not even have to leave."1000 other ways. Dramatic much? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?
You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks.
"If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests."
But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"?
I have no idea why it would be in their interest, we can go with 'they didn't want them as neighbours, they no longer are their neighbours'. Fuck me mate, not everything is as you see it.
You're obviously trying to argue on an economic level, with that I'd agree but not everyone voted to leave for economics reasons.
Please try to quit the person attacks.
Why don't they want them as neighbours? (rhetorical question). We're approaching the point I'm making, in your example, they have been influenced somehow to not like Europeans.
My opinion is still that someone who has been convinced they don't want to live next to Europeans has been influenced to such a stupid opinion, and has voted against their own interests in the small picture (living near foreigners, who most likely are nice people, being foreign has no impact on their niceness), and in the overall picture of the impacts of brexit.
There was no personal attack in my last reply. Stop playing the victim.
How do you know they were influenced to not like them?
They may have had numerous run ins with then over a period of time. You could get that with any neighbour. They have have thought 'ill vote to leave and get rid of them that way'
I've said it many times. None of us know the reasonings or motivations for anyone else's vote, until we do, your question is nonsense.
There is no conspiracy or brainwashing happening.
Please just let go the personal attacks. And then the gaslighting telling me I'm playing the victim.
You and the other chap are the only people talking about brainwashing. Not me.
So your suggestion for people voting against their own interests, isn't that they've been influenced by the media or government PR but that that might not like foreigners because they had run ins with some whom they live near. As an example of the type of reasoning?
Fair enough.
Stop trying to bait me. It won't work.
Trying to understand your point, it's been a long road to get here.
No baiting going on.
Just as there's no personal attacks going on.
I don't know how many time I have to say it, this'll be the last time.
You do not know the reasoning or motivation for anyone voting as they did. Ergo, you cannot possibly say its against their interest. Its impossible.
The reasoning for voting for something like Brexit isn't directly related to it being in someone's interest.
In the example you gave, someone may have voted for Brexit because they don't want European neighbours.
They still suffer the consequences of brexit. Same as the rest of us. The European people weren't horrible people because they're not British.
They voted against their own interests.
What's happening here is you're refusing to understand their may be people with different interests than you.
As I said, if we're talking purely economic reason then I'd agree but Brexit was not purely about economic reasons.
Maybe we've found why you struggle so much to understand?
Nope.
I just want to dive deeper into your example. To me, this person is still voting against their own interests, they might not know it. But they are. Not living next to a European person might be their aim, but voting to leave the EU has disadvantaged them in 1000 other ways, and their European neighbours might not even have to leave.
1000 other ways. Dramatic much?"Whatever the number is. The point is the same. They've not voted in their own interests. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?
You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks.
"If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests."
But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"?
I have no idea why it would be in their interest, we can go with 'they didn't want them as neighbours, they no longer are their neighbours'. Fuck me mate, not everything is as you see it.
You're obviously trying to argue on an economic level, with that I'd agree but not everyone voted to leave for economics reasons.
Please try to quit the person attacks.
Why don't they want them as neighbours? (rhetorical question). We're approaching the point I'm making, in your example, they have been influenced somehow to not like Europeans.
My opinion is still that someone who has been convinced they don't want to live next to Europeans has been influenced to such a stupid opinion, and has voted against their own interests in the small picture (living near foreigners, who most likely are nice people, being foreign has no impact on their niceness), and in the overall picture of the impacts of brexit.
There was no personal attack in my last reply. Stop playing the victim.
How do you know they were influenced to not like them?
They may have had numerous run ins with then over a period of time. You could get that with any neighbour. They have have thought 'ill vote to leave and get rid of them that way'
I've said it many times. None of us know the reasonings or motivations for anyone else's vote, until we do, your question is nonsense.
There is no conspiracy or brainwashing happening.
Please just let go the personal attacks. And then the gaslighting telling me I'm playing the victim.
You and the other chap are the only people talking about brainwashing. Not me.
So your suggestion for people voting against their own interests, isn't that they've been influenced by the media or government PR but that that might not like foreigners because they had run ins with some whom they live near. As an example of the type of reasoning?
Fair enough.
Stop trying to bait me. It won't work.
Trying to understand your point, it's been a long road to get here.
No baiting going on.
Just as there's no personal attacks going on.
I don't know how many time I have to say it, this'll be the last time.
You do not know the reasoning or motivation for anyone voting as they did. Ergo, you cannot possibly say its against their interest. Its impossible.
The reasoning for voting for something like Brexit isn't directly related to it being in someone's interest.
In the example you gave, someone may have voted for Brexit because they don't want European neighbours.
They still suffer the consequences of brexit. Same as the rest of us. The European people weren't horrible people because they're not British.
They voted against their own interests.
What's happening here is you're refusing to understand their may be people with different interests than you.
As I said, if we're talking purely economic reason then I'd agree but Brexit was not purely about economic reasons.
Maybe we've found why you struggle so much to understand?
Nope.
I just want to dive deeper into your example. To me, this person is still voting against their own interests, they might not know it. But they are. Not living next to a European person might be their aim, but voting to leave the EU has disadvantaged them in 1000 other ways, and their European neighbours might not even have to leave.
1000 other ways. Dramatic much?
Whatever the number is.
The point is the same. They've not voted in their own interests."In your opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Just saw you replied to me. Not sure I have seen anyone in this thread using the term brainwashing before this post? Did Johnny? I didn’t see it! Brainwashing would be too strong a word but it is undeniable that people are more easily influenced than they would like to think. It is why advertising works! A lot of science sits behind advertising just as it does with propaganda. The Nazis knew this very well (just to make an attempt at tying this very frayed thread back together). If someone spends decades consuming a specific media source, their thinking will be influenced by that media source. The idea that we all somehow have complete agency over our own thoughts and ideas is very naive. It is why echo chambers (especially social media) are so dangerous and a threat to critical thinking. No one used 'brainwashing' until I did. My opinion is that some people allude to people being brainwashed, quite clearly at times. Of course media has influence over people, I don't think it has as much influence as the credit its given though, maybe that's me looking at it from a personal perspective. I certainly don't remember saying that it has no influence so not sure where any naivety comes into play." You’d be amazed how influenced you are. We all think we have agency but we all have less than we think. Your views on most things have been shaped by various things, and that will include your media consumption over a period of years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Just saw you replied to me. Not sure I have seen anyone in this thread using the term brainwashing before this post? Did Johnny? I didn’t see it! Brainwashing would be too strong a word but it is undeniable that people are more easily influenced than they would like to think. It is why advertising works! A lot of science sits behind advertising just as it does with propaganda. The Nazis knew this very well (just to make an attempt at tying this very frayed thread back together). If someone spends decades consuming a specific media source, their thinking will be influenced by that media source. The idea that we all somehow have complete agency over our own thoughts and ideas is very naive. It is why echo chambers (especially social media) are so dangerous and a threat to critical thinking. No one used 'brainwashing' until I did. My opinion is that some people allude to people being brainwashed, quite clearly at times. Of course media has influence over people, I don't think it has as much influence as the credit its given though, maybe that's me looking at it from a personal perspective. I certainly don't remember saying that it has no influence so not sure where any naivety comes into play. You’d be amazed how influenced you are. We all think we have agency but we all have less than we think. Your views on most things have been shaped by various things, and that will include your media consumption over a period of years." It will include the media, as well as many other things including family, friends, workplace, locality etc etc. I just think the media is given far more credit than deserved. For me personally, I don't subscribe to any media outlets and read a wide variety of articles from different sources. Let's say I read The Guardian, The Mirror, The Daily Mail & The Sun. Exactly how does that equate to me being influenced one way or the other in terms of a Brexit vote? I understand some people will only read from one outlet, but can we be certain just how many people do that so are influenced only in one particular way? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think the electorate continually votes against their own interests? Successive Tory governments, Brexit etc." What are their interests? And why do you think voting conservative / Brexit etc is against them? "Why did the not believe it was against their own interests?" What are their own interests? How do you know they voted against them? "I'm asking why you think people voted against their own interests." I'm asking you what are their own interests? And how do you know they voted against them? "We knew Brexit would be shit for British people, British businesses and the economy, while offering no benefits." Did we? How? When? Where? Why? "Why did people think voting for brexit was in their best interests?" First you'd need to prove 1) the above is the unarguable truth and then 2) that voters knowingly still voted for Brexit knowing said truth. "Why not, this is my question to you, why do you think they thought it was in their own interests?" My question to you is what are their own interests? And why do you think Brexit was against them? "Is your argument that they mindlessly voted against their own interests?" Well, first we need to clearly and firmly establish what their interests actually are. Then we can look at what voting to either stay or leave the EU would be in terms of 'mindlessly'. "Why did people have those beliefs that are contrary to reality? That's the question." What reality? What contrary beliefs? These are the questions... "Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this." How? "Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question," What did/do they want instead? If Brexit was so clearly against what it is they actually want? These are my questions. "The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples." Why are they obvious? The question is simply what are their own interests? "I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc." But you've yet to clearly define what those interests even are, let alone whether or not voing one way or another is against them or not. It's hard to take your 'genuine interest' in alternative viewpoints on good faith, when so far your entire attitude here seems to pretty clearly boil down to; "if you don't think / vote the way I do, then clearly the ONLY explanation is you're being manipulated against your own interests!" Just seems kinda closed-minded, y'know? "Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?" Are you saying they aren't? It would depend on what those interests actually are. "Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case." Is it? How? When? Where? Why? "If you want to discuss the topic I am happy to return to the question of why people vote en masse against their own interests." What are their interests? Why do you think they've voted en masse against them? "Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires." How? Why? "They still suffer the consequences of brexit. Same as the rest of us." Which are? "They voted against their own interests." How so? What were their own interests? Remembering, of course, that voting for a desired outcome, and 'suffering' the consequences of whatever the outcome turned out to be after the fact, aren't the same thing. "To me, this person is still voting against their own interests, they might not know it. But they are." What are their own interests? "voting to leave the EU has disadvantaged them in 1000 other ways" How? What? Where? Why? "The point is the same. They've not voted in their own interests." We still need to know what these interests actually are before we can even begin to talk about for or against. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do you think the electorate continually votes against their own interests? Successive Tory governments, Brexit etc. What are their interests? And why do you think voting conservative / Brexit etc is against them? Why did the not believe it was against their own interests? What are their own interests? How do you know they voted against them? I'm asking why you think people voted against their own interests. I'm asking you what are their own interests? And how do you know they voted against them? We knew Brexit would be shit for British people, British businesses and the economy, while offering no benefits. Did we? How? When? Where? Why? Why did people think voting for brexit was in their best interests? First you'd need to prove 1) the above is the unarguable truth and then 2) that voters knowingly still voted for Brexit knowing said truth. Why not, this is my question to you, why do you think they thought it was in their own interests? My question to you is what are their own interests? And why do you think Brexit was against them? Is your argument that they mindlessly voted against their own interests? Well, first we need to clearly and firmly establish what their interests actually are. Then we can look at what voting to either stay or leave the EU would be in terms of 'mindlessly'. Why did people have those beliefs that are contrary to reality? That's the question. What reality? What contrary beliefs? These are the questions... Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. How? Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, What did/do they want instead? If Brexit was so clearly against what it is they actually want? These are my questions. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. Why are they obvious? The question is simply what are their own interests? I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. But you've yet to clearly define what those interests even are, let alone whether or not voing one way or another is against them or not. It's hard to take your 'genuine interest' in alternative viewpoints on good faith, when so far your entire attitude here seems to pretty clearly boil down to; "if you don't think / vote the way I do, then clearly the ONLY explanation is you're being manipulated against your own interests!" Just seems kinda closed-minded, y'know? Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests? Are you saying they aren't? It would depend on what those interests actually are. Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case. Is it? How? When? Where? Why? If you want to discuss the topic I am happy to return to the question of why people vote en masse against their own interests. What are their interests? Why do you think they've voted en masse against them? Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. How? Why? They still suffer the consequences of brexit. Same as the rest of us. Which are? They voted against their own interests. How so? What were their own interests? Remembering, of course, that voting for a desired outcome, and 'suffering' the consequences of whatever the outcome turned out to be after the fact, aren't the same thing. To me, this person is still voting against their own interests, they might not know it. But they are. What are their own interests? voting to leave the EU has disadvantaged them in 1000 other ways How? What? Where? Why? The point is the same. They've not voted in their own interests. We still need to know what these interests actually are before we can even begin to talk about for or against." I appreciate the effort you've gone to pulling out all these quotes and putting the brackets around them etc. Fair play to you. Is there somewhere you wish to start? Brexit was just an easy example, but the original point was people voting against their own interests. I'm assuming people's interests aren't being poorer, living in a poorer country, having freedom to live and work in other EU countries removed, having British businesses adversely effected, potentially having safety standards, workers rights etc removed. Etc etc etc (we all know the impact of brexit). That's the starting point. Of course there are a very small number of people for whom these things were advantageous. So then I should say that I'm referring to the electorate at large rather than those individuals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Just saw you replied to me. Not sure I have seen anyone in this thread using the term brainwashing before this post? Did Johnny? I didn’t see it! Brainwashing would be too strong a word but it is undeniable that people are more easily influenced than they would like to think. It is why advertising works! A lot of science sits behind advertising just as it does with propaganda. The Nazis knew this very well (just to make an attempt at tying this very frayed thread back together). If someone spends decades consuming a specific media source, their thinking will be influenced by that media source. The idea that we all somehow have complete agency over our own thoughts and ideas is very naive. It is why echo chambers (especially social media) are so dangerous and a threat to critical thinking. No one used 'brainwashing' until I did. My opinion is that some people allude to people being brainwashed, quite clearly at times. Of course media has influence over people, I don't think it has as much influence as the credit its given though, maybe that's me looking at it from a personal perspective. I certainly don't remember saying that it has no influence so not sure where any naivety comes into play. You’d be amazed how influenced you are. We all think we have agency but we all have less than we think. Your views on most things have been shaped by various things, and that will include your media consumption over a period of years. It will include the media, as well as many other things including family, friends, workplace, locality etc etc. I just think the media is given far more credit than deserved. For me personally, I don't subscribe to any media outlets and read a wide variety of articles from different sources. Let's say I read The Guardian, The Mirror, The Daily Mail & The Sun. Exactly how does that equate to me being influenced one way or the other in terms of a Brexit vote? I understand some people will only read from one outlet, but can we be certain just how many people do that so are influenced only in one particular way?" But... "It will include the media, as well as many other things including family, friends, workplace, locality etc etc." in ALL those cases it involves people and they are influenced by the media too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Why can't the topic of the day be against their own interests? Brexit and the Tories are two clear examples of exactly this. Why do people "believe Brexit is what they wanted", This is my question, I get a lot of shit for having an opinion, I'm open to having my opinion changed, but no one is offering an alternative. People wanted Brexit and voted Tory to get that. If I vote for something I want, how is it possible that's against my interests. I got what I wanted. Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted. Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall. Who are you to decide something is against someone else's interests? Let's be honest, doesn't matter what I say, you always read into it some nonsense like that. I don't know why you are making this about me again. The question is simply about why people vote against their own interests. Brexit and the Tories are just two obvious examples. You're suggesting "Whether that turns out to be good or bad, I still got what I wanted." People wanted Brexit to be bad? Who said people wanted Brexit to be bad? You really ought to learn how to read if you're gonna criticise other for 'reading into it something nonsense', not that that even makes sense. I quoted what you said and asked you a question. Alas this has turned into another just having a go at me instead of trying to discuss the points. I'm genuinely interested in why else people vote against their own interests aside from influence from the media, government PR/propaganda etc. You keep talking about it being against people's interests. I don't think you getbit but rather than understand you default to playing the victim. What about instead of having a pop at me and at my opinion. Maybe offer an alternative opinion? How hard is this? If you want something (Brexit) and a vote (Tory) gets you that. How is it possible that it's against your interests? It's not possible, unless you're deciding what interests others .
Still have to get a personal dig in there. It would be better if you didn't get personal.
Are you saying the Tories being in power and Brexit are in people's interests?
Aside from a few billionaires. It's demonstratably not the case.
There's nothing personal apart from the fact that I think you purposely refuse to understand.
I'm not saying anything about others because I have no idea of their motivations or reasonings. Just as I don't believe you do, hence, your view is nonsense.
So you think my view is nonsense, and you spend lots of time arguing, but you have no alternative view?
I am genuinely interested in what people who have different view think. I don't know why the people arguing with me don't want to share theirs aside from calling mine nonsense, which it may well be.
I'm not gonna explain again. As I said, I think you purposely refuse to understand.
But you haven't offered an alternative view. How am I supposed to understand if you don't?
You believe people are brainwashed and it's a conspiracy, I don't. Theirs really no alternative view to offer.
You made that up, then got annoyed about it. Then won't answer the question.
If you've no interest in the topic, are you just here to have a go at me?
I made up something that others also see? That's a coincidence.
I said this to you earlier:
"Whether you like it or not, you come across as 'everyone is brainwashed and it's all a big conspiracy', that's your downfall."
Indeed. So you're just here to have a go at me, you have no opinion on the topic being discussed?
Is this some sort of reverse gaslighting you like to play?
I can't help that you come across in that way, that's on you
I'll take that as a yes.
Shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
You'll obviously take it that way with your victim complex but I didn't say so.
As it happens, I wasn't even speaking to you when I posted initially.
I've told you plenty of times the question is nonsense, it's not possible for you to know what is or isn't in someone's best interest.
Not sure why you constantly try to make this against me.
Brexit (the example we're using) is not in any of our interests, unless we're billionaires. Yet lots of people voted for it.
It's fine not to have any view, but then not sure why my view upsets you so much.
Anyway, this constant 'playing the player, not the ball' is no fun. So I'll leave you guys to it.
If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests.
That's the point, you have no idea of anyone's motivations or reasonings. I said this ages ago but you choose not to read or ignore.
You're view doesn't upset me, tbh I'm starting to feel like you're just here to bait people.
Am I allowed to think that or is that a 'personal attack'?
You can think anything. Most of your replies to me here and elsewhere contain personal attacks.
"If someone voted to 'send Europeans home' Brexit was most definitely in their interests."
But this is interesting. Why is it in their interest to "send Europeans home"?
I have no idea why it would be in their interest, we can go with 'they didn't want them as neighbours, they no longer are their neighbours'. Fuck me mate, not everything is as you see it.
You're obviously trying to argue on an economic level, with that I'd agree but not everyone voted to leave for economics reasons.
Please try to quit the person attacks.
Why don't they want them as neighbours? (rhetorical question). We're approaching the point I'm making, in your example, they have been influenced somehow to not like Europeans.
My opinion is still that someone who has been convinced they don't want to live next to Europeans has been influenced to such a stupid opinion, and has voted against their own interests in the small picture (living near foreigners, who most likely are nice people, being foreign has no impact on their niceness), and in the overall picture of the impacts of brexit.
There was no personal attack in my last reply. Stop playing the victim.
How do you know they were influenced to not like them?
They may have had numerous run ins with then over a period of time. You could get that with any neighbour. They have have thought 'ill vote to leave and get rid of them that way'
I've said it many times. None of us know the reasonings or motivations for anyone else's vote, until we do, your question is nonsense.
There is no conspiracy or brainwashing happening.
Please just let go the personal attacks. And then the gaslighting telling me I'm playing the victim.
You and the other chap are the only people talking about brainwashing. Not me.
So your suggestion for people voting against their own interests, isn't that they've been influenced by the media or government PR but that that might not like foreigners because they had run ins with some whom they live near. As an example of the type of reasoning?
Fair enough.
Stop trying to bait me. It won't work.
Trying to understand your point, it's been a long road to get here.
No baiting going on.
Just as there's no personal attacks going on.
I don't know how many time I have to say it, this'll be the last time.
You do not know the reasoning or motivation for anyone voting as they did. Ergo, you cannot possibly say its against their interest. Its impossible.
The reasoning for voting for something like Brexit isn't directly related to it being in someone's interest.
In the example you gave, someone may have voted for Brexit because they don't want European neighbours.
They still suffer the consequences of brexit. Same as the rest of us. The European people weren't horrible people because they're not British.
They voted against their own interests.
What's happening here is you're refusing to understand their may be people with different interests than you.
As I said, if we're talking purely economic reason then I'd agree but Brexit was not purely about economic reasons.
Maybe we've found why you struggle so much to understand?
Nope.
I just want to dive deeper into your example. To me, this person is still voting against their own interests, they might not know it. But they are. Not living next to a European person might be their aim, but voting to leave the EU has disadvantaged them in 1000 other ways, and their European neighbours might not even have to leave.
1000 other ways. Dramatic much?
Whatever the number is.
The point is the same. They've not voted in their own interests."********************************** Yes, as already posted and to which I agree.., This is merely YOUR OPINION. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Just saw you replied to me. Not sure I have seen anyone in this thread using the term brainwashing before this post? Did Johnny? I didn’t see it! Brainwashing would be too strong a word but it is undeniable that people are more easily influenced than they would like to think. It is why advertising works! A lot of science sits behind advertising just as it does with propaganda. The Nazis knew this very well (just to make an attempt at tying this very frayed thread back together). If someone spends decades consuming a specific media source, their thinking will be influenced by that media source. The idea that we all somehow have complete agency over our own thoughts and ideas is very naive. It is why echo chambers (especially social media) are so dangerous and a threat to critical thinking. No one used 'brainwashing' until I did. My opinion is that some people allude to people being brainwashed, quite clearly at times. Of course media has influence over people, I don't think it has as much influence as the credit its given though, maybe that's me looking at it from a personal perspective. I certainly don't remember saying that it has no influence so not sure where any naivety comes into play. You’d be amazed how influenced you are. We all think we have agency but we all have less than we think. Your views on most things have been shaped by various things, and that will include your media consumption over a period of years. It will include the media, as well as many other things including family, friends, workplace, locality etc etc. I just think the media is given far more credit than deserved. For me personally, I don't subscribe to any media outlets and read a wide variety of articles from different sources. Let's say I read The Guardian, The Mirror, The Daily Mail & The Sun. Exactly how does that equate to me being influenced one way or the other in terms of a Brexit vote? I understand some people will only read from one outlet, but can we be certain just how many people do that so are influenced only in one particular way? But... It will include the media, as well as many other things including family, friends, workplace, locality etc etc. in ALL those cases it involves people and they are influenced by the media too." Sounds like a conspiracy. You've been spending too much time with Johnny
How does where I work or live = those places influenced by media?
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I appreciate the effort you've gone to pulling out all these quotes and putting the brackets around them etc. Fair play to you." Thank you. "Is there somewhere you wish to start?" At the beginning? "Brexit was just an easy example," Of what? And how so? "but the original point was people voting against their own interests." Which are? "I'm assuming people's interests aren't being poorer, living in a poorer country, having freedom to live and work in other EU countries removed, having British businesses adversely effected, potentially having safety standards, workers rights etc removed." Yeah, assuming is definitely the correct word... So anyway, your point is that this is what Brexit was advertised as to voters? Interesting. Can you expand / explain further on how this was the case, please? "Etc etc etc (we all know the impact of brexit)." Do we? What was it? Do we similarly all know that voting for something (interests) and receiving something (impact) aren't the same thing? "Of course there are a very small number of people for whom these things were advantageous. So then I should say that I'm referring to the electorate at large rather than those individuals" What are 'these things'? And to whom were they a benefit? And in what way? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I appreciate the effort you've gone to pulling out all these quotes and putting the brackets around them etc. Fair play to you. Thank you. Is there somewhere you wish to start? At the beginning? Brexit was just an easy example, Of what? And how so? " Clearest easiest example of people voting against their own interests. " but the original point was people voting against their own interests. Which are? I'm assuming people's interests aren't being poorer, living in a poorer country, having freedom to live and work in other EU countries removed, having British businesses adversely effected, potentially having safety standards, workers rights etc removed. Yeah, assuming is definitely the correct word... So anyway, your point is that this is what Brexit was advertised as to voters? Interesting. Can you expand / explain further on how this was the case, please? " No, my point is that a large portion of the electorate are not politically engaged and are easily influenced by media, government PR etc. Believe simple solutions to complex problems. " Etc etc etc (we all know the impact of brexit). Do we? What was it? Do we similarly all know that voting for something (interests) and receiving something (impact) aren't the same thing? " Brexit is just the example. But yes, by and large we knew the impact it would have leaving the EU. " Of course there are a very small number of people for whom these things were advantageous. So then I should say that I'm referring to the electorate at large rather than those individuals What are 'these things'? And to whom were they a benefit? And in what way?" That was just making a point that just a few ultra rich people did vote for Brexit, and voted in their own interests. JRM as an example. That's a different thread though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Just saw you replied to me. Not sure I have seen anyone in this thread using the term brainwashing before this post? Did Johnny? I didn’t see it! Brainwashing would be too strong a word but it is undeniable that people are more easily influenced than they would like to think. It is why advertising works! A lot of science sits behind advertising just as it does with propaganda. The Nazis knew this very well (just to make an attempt at tying this very frayed thread back together). If someone spends decades consuming a specific media source, their thinking will be influenced by that media source. The idea that we all somehow have complete agency over our own thoughts and ideas is very naive. It is why echo chambers (especially social media) are so dangerous and a threat to critical thinking. No one used 'brainwashing' until I did. My opinion is that some people allude to people being brainwashed, quite clearly at times. Of course media has influence over people, I don't think it has as much influence as the credit its given though, maybe that's me looking at it from a personal perspective. I certainly don't remember saying that it has no influence so not sure where any naivety comes into play. You’d be amazed how influenced you are. We all think we have agency but we all have less than we think. Your views on most things have been shaped by various things, and that will include your media consumption over a period of years. It will include the media, as well as many other things including family, friends, workplace, locality etc etc. I just think the media is given far more credit than deserved. For me personally, I don't subscribe to any media outlets and read a wide variety of articles from different sources. Let's say I read The Guardian, The Mirror, The Daily Mail & The Sun. Exactly how does that equate to me being influenced one way or the other in terms of a Brexit vote? I understand some people will only read from one outlet, but can we be certain just how many people do that so are influenced only in one particular way? But... It will include the media, as well as many other things including family, friends, workplace, locality etc etc. in ALL those cases it involves people and they are influenced by the media too. Sounds like a conspiracy. You've been spending too much time with Johnny
How does where I work or live = those places influenced by media?
"So you know when you are at home or in work? Is it the buildings that influence your thinking or the people in those buildings? Obv the people right? So how did they form their opinions? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@NotMe just to jump in where you say Of course they would listen to campaigns and slogans, but what you are missing here is they either already held a strong belief of leaving the EU, or they heard something that supported an underlying opinion or belief and if it resonated then they would side with that promise or view. I think the influence Johnny is talking about goes back decades not just around 2016 and campaigning. People’s already held strong beliefs had been influenced by a constant drip drip drip of anti-EU stories (bent bananas for example). If you tell people enough seemingly innocuous, and in and of themselves petty little things, it creates an overarching perception. A higher proportion of the press consumed by the demographics who did vote Leave had long held anti-EU views that percolated through everything they reported on for decades. Death by a thousand cuts if you like. I think it is undeniable that people are more influenced and subtly manipulated than any of us would like to admit. It isn’t a handful of big campaign messages it is thousands of tiny little stories and fluff pieces over prolonged periods. And it works the other way too. A major reason New Labour and Tony Blair won in 1997 because Murdoch, News Corp, and in particular The Sun, decided to back them. As much as I agree that beliefs are formed over a period of time, I genuinely don't believe people are brainwashed in this country. As for people voting time and again against their interests. As Notme has been trying to explain, people vote on the day largely for the topic of the day. That isn't against their own interests. If someone believed Brexit was what they wanted, Tory was the only vote to guarantee that in 2019, that's voting in favour of their interests not against. Just saw you replied to me. Not sure I have seen anyone in this thread using the term brainwashing before this post? Did Johnny? I didn’t see it! Brainwashing would be too strong a word but it is undeniable that people are more easily influenced than they would like to think. It is why advertising works! A lot of science sits behind advertising just as it does with propaganda. The Nazis knew this very well (just to make an attempt at tying this very frayed thread back together). If someone spends decades consuming a specific media source, their thinking will be influenced by that media source. The idea that we all somehow have complete agency over our own thoughts and ideas is very naive. It is why echo chambers (especially social media) are so dangerous and a threat to critical thinking. No one used 'brainwashing' until I did. My opinion is that some people allude to people being brainwashed, quite clearly at times. Of course media has influence over people, I don't think it has as much influence as the credit its given though, maybe that's me looking at it from a personal perspective. I certainly don't remember saying that it has no influence so not sure where any naivety comes into play. You’d be amazed how influenced you are. We all think we have agency but we all have less than we think. Your views on most things have been shaped by various things, and that will include your media consumption over a period of years. It will include the media, as well as many other things including family, friends, workplace, locality etc etc. I just think the media is given far more credit than deserved. For me personally, I don't subscribe to any media outlets and read a wide variety of articles from different sources. Let's say I read The Guardian, The Mirror, The Daily Mail & The Sun. Exactly how does that equate to me being influenced one way or the other in terms of a Brexit vote? I understand some people will only read from one outlet, but can we be certain just how many people do that so are influenced only in one particular way? But... It will include the media, as well as many other things including family, friends, workplace, locality etc etc. in ALL those cases it involves people and they are influenced by the media too. Sounds like a conspiracy. You've been spending too much time with Johnny
How does where I work or live = those places influenced by media?
So you know when you are at home or in work? Is it the buildings that influence your thinking or the people in those buildings? Obv the people right? So how did they form their opinions?"It could be the people but not necessarily their views. It could be how they look if I was racist. It could be how they behave. It could be how laws affect my industry. It could be health and safety gone mad. It could be a number of different things that may affect my thinking, not always other peoples views. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
