Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why do people find it so hard to look at things objectively? (politics) watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    This thread is so pointless. You're asking why remainers didn't vote to leave, while stating that brexiters didn't want to remain...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    The problem wasn't that it was untrue, it was the unashamed vitriol for old people and the working class that we saw. I spoke to various working class people, and working class old people, and their views were perfectly reasonable. No mention of Farage's silly claim about us spending 350m (or whatever the figure was) on the EU.
    As i said, a democaratic vote assumes all are equal, be that a working class old male or a young, celebrity female( if thats good or bad is a whole different debate). So, if the people voted leave, everyone should respect that(however, i can also see why there is a lot of tension due to the vote being so close and many other factors). Anyway, these things always happen in politics and we wont see any results probably untill next yearish or so i would assume(it has been a month since Brexit, not much changed).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mvine001)
    Nigel Farage was possibly the rudest about the whole referendum though. He said that everybody who chose to leave chose correctly. Does he mean that there was a correct answer and a wrong answer?
    I suppose there can actually be. I'll separate the arguments into economic and democratic. Now if I choose a democratic argument, there is definitely a right answer here, because people forget that this vote affects all generations, including future generations, and democracy means power to the people. This would also mean power to the people at any one time. So even if you vote for something that is not democratic, doesn't make it democratic unless the people have the power at any one time, and that they can opt out of it legally at any one time.

    (Original post by george_c00per)
    Hmmmm although the remain campaigners said some nasty things to old people and leave voters, some members of the leave side committed arson attacks to immigrants and one even killed an MP...
    Hmmmm "some nasty things"; o, what [some] people in the remain camp has said has been absolutely vile. That people over the age of 50 should be allowed to vote, that leave voters are evil, all racist, regressive people. Primitive, tribal.

    Are you sure you're not committing the association fallacy with Jo Cox's death?
    That "murderer was Britain First member, and Britain First is Eurosceptic, so murderer killed on Euroscepticism."
    Actually that's an assumption on your part.

    (Original post by JRKinder)
    Equally, remain voters would say why couldn't the fishermen look past their own interests and see how the referendum affects others in the country. You could argue that the common fisheries policy is designed to protect the environment, which is a much more worthy argument than allowing a few fishermen to fish further afield. For the record, I agree that the policy is a bit ridiculous and should be different for countries that have a large coastline, as opposed to those who have little. But I can also see why it was in place and the other arguments (economic, political etc) are much more important than something as small as fishing. At the end of the day, the rational, selfish mind will vote for what favours themselves the best, so celebrities will vote for less travel restrictions and fishermen will vote for less fishing restrictions - even if this means overlooking the bigger picture. Sad, yes, but it's a fact of life.
    If the environment was such a high priority why wouldn't everyone vote to leave the EU?

    Believe it or not, the EU had a disastrous effect on forestry, and although the EU carbon tax (EU Emission Trading Scheme) was a force for good, it needed a heckuva lot of reforms. And ironically to all those who put the EU on a pedestal, the UK's own Climate Change Levy beat the EU carbon tax by 4 years.

    The EU had a disastrous effect on forestry because although there were initiatives in CAP to improve the environment, and there were regional development programs for the environment, farmers were awarded relative to the amount of land they had "at their disposal", not how much they actually used. This prompted farmers to deforest everything into a grassland. Deforestation increases erosion, flooding etc. There would also be less photosynthetic biomass to remove carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. More carbon dioxide means more dissolves into the sea, and pH levels of the sea increase, however negligible. Okay, enough with my scare-mongering. But regardless it prompted farmers to destroy forestry so that they can claim more.

    What is the bigger picture?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's the fact that people don't want to admit their own beliefs and prejudices are wrong.

    It's as simple as that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richpanda)
    I believe it's either just ignorance, or that they have so much arrogance that they think their opinion is the only one that matters.

    Case in point is the EU referendum. A whole army of wealthy celebrities telling everyone that they think it's best if we stay in the EU. Well, so what? Of course they'd say that. They live in exclusive super-rich villages and take 4 holidays a year to Crete or Sardinia.

    They say that it's 'shocking and unbelievable' that we have left the EU. Well, it's not really is it? Are you really that shocked that workers seeing their wages being undercut, or fishers with tight EU restrictions want to leave?

    Even as a brexiteer, I can totally see why someone living in London would want to remain. More jobs, investment, science, whatever. But those people seem unable to comprehend that there are people living in the UK who aren't in the same position as them.
    Arrogance, intellectual conceit, ignorance, and the fact they are so easily propagandised and taught what to think, not how to. It's utterly depressing how they reduce politics to one simple spectrum of good and bad, and only see either side as full of good and bad people, as though causes can never be hijacked. Some are willing to take it further on the cultural left and turn a blind eye to civilizational suicide and appalling suffering in a way that is extremely spiteful and creepy.
    This relates to my other thread.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    There wasn't a consensus.
    Who said there was? Point is, a vast array of politicians, businessmen, economists and scientists warned against it. It would be stupid to shove their views aside.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    OP if you are so objective explain this...

    areas with low immigration voted mainly for Brexit

    https://theconversation.com/hard-evi...r-brexit-62138

    If immigration is such a killer why did London vote remain? What with all those immigrants taking up jobs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
    It makes no sense to ignore the experts advice, they overwhelmingly told us of the consequences of Brexit - and so far they're even worse, given the current political situation.
    An expert is nothing but a dog trained by the establishment to spread their message.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    OP if you are so objective explain this...

    areas with low immigration voted mainly for Brexit

    https://theconversation.com/hard-evi...r-brexit-62138

    If immigration is such a killer why did London vote remain? What with all those immigrants taking up jobs.
    Because a huge amount of people in London are immigrants who can vote or children of immigrants, /thread.

    Also London probably does get a net benefit from the EU, I'm not denying that. But other areas don't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richpanda)
    An expert is nothing but a dog trained by the establishment to spread their message.
    Not sure what is stupider... your OP, or your claims that every single expert is working for the 'establishment'.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richpanda)
    Because a huge amount of people in London are immigrants who can vote or children of immigrants, /thread.
    Err nope.

    People who complain most about immigration in places where there is least immigration. This also includes none whites in these areas.

    London, Manchester etc have lots of immigration and are the most multicultural metropolitan places in the UK and they don't have the same problem with UKIP. The least multicultural and multi ethnic places vote UKIP.

    Also the places that vote UKIP and leave received a lot of funding form the EU.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...eave-ebbw-vale

    Farmers received lots of funding.

    As soon as we voted to Leave Cornwall demanded the UK replace EU funding.

    Also if you are so objective and rational you would know that having such strong conviction in your correctness when dealing with such complex systems such as economies and the agents within that economy is a mugs game.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Human nature. Everyones political beliefs reflect their own cultural ideologies. Very, very few of us seek and assimilate information without a hint of bias. We all seek what we want to see, interpret from it what we want, and remember what we want. It's a very well known idea in Psychology. See biased assimilation, and attitude polarisation.

    It explains why you'll have leftists (such as myself) arguing to a right-winger until they are blue in their face and vice versa. How often do you ever see someone actually listen to the other side of the argument, and say "you know what, you are right". Barely ever!

    Yes, it makes me hate humans a little. But it's a fact of human nature, I do it myself.

    An interesting theory is Cultural Cognition theory by Kahan. If you're interested look into it. I won't go into it now because no ones probably even reading this. But I reckon that those high in individualism/ hierarchism were more likely to vote leave, whereas egalitarians/ communitarians were more likely to vote stay.

    I'd be willing to bet on it, and I wouldn't be in the slightest surprised if some research is published regarding this in the near future.

    Oh wait, I take that back, of course universities will have lost a significant amount of their research funding.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richpanda)
    And there was never any abject misery when New Labour was in charge?
    A lot less I think, but of course they were Thatcherites too, particularly awful at building houses.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Human nature. Everyones political beliefs reflect their own cultural ideologies. Very, very few of us seek and assimilate information without a hint of bias. We all seek what we want to see, interpret from it what we want, and remember what we want. It's a very well known idea in Psychology. See biased assimilation, and attitude polarisation.

    It explains why you'll have leftists (such as myself) arguing to a right-winger until they are blue in their face and vice versa. How often do you ever see someone actually listen to the other side of the argument, and say "you know what, you are right". Barely ever!

    Yes, it makes me hate humans a little. But it's a fact of human nature, I do it myself.

    An interesting theory is Cultural Cognition theory by Kahan. If you're interested look into it. I won't go into it now because no ones probably even reading this. But I reckon that those high in individualism/ hierarchism were more likely to vote leave, whereas egalitarians/ communitarians were more likely to vote stay.

    I'd be willing to bet on it, and I wouldn't be in the slightest surprised if some research is published regarding this in the near future.

    Oh wait, I take that back, of course universities will have lost a significant amount of their research funding.
    Fwiw there was a paper lead authored by Kahan that got some media attention a while ago... Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government (non paywall)

    Or for those who dislike reading...

    wrt brexit : for the referendum campaigns both sides appeared to be making up numbers on the spot anyway... but even if there had been good, unbiassed numbers available most people would just have continued to believe what they believed in the first place anyway
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    Fwiw there was a paper lead authored by Kahan that got some media attention a while ago... Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government (non paywall)

    Or for those who dislike reading...

    wrt brexit : for the referendum campaigns both sides appeared to be making up numbers on the spot anyway... but even if there had been good, unbiassed numbers available most people would just have continued to believe what they believed in the first place anyway
    Oooh that paper looks pretty interesting thanks I read similar papers for my dissertation concerning numeracy possibly increasing polarisation, I like the look of the experiment used in this one would have come in quite useful actually, don't know how I missed it!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Err nope.

    People who complain most about immigration in places where there is least immigration. This also includes none whites in these areas.

    London, Manchester etc have lots of immigration and are the most multicultural metropolitan places in the UK and they don't have the same problem with UKIP. The least multicultural and multi ethnic places vote UKIP.

    Also the places that vote UKIP and leave received a lot of funding form the EU.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...eave-ebbw-vale

    Farmers received lots of funding.

    As soon as we voted to Leave Cornwall demanded the UK replace EU funding.

    Also if you are so objective and rational you would know that having such strong conviction in your correctness when dealing with such complex systems such as economies and the agents within that economy is a mugs game.
    That is really undermining the issues and the complexity of said issues faced by farmers.

    This is a post I made on my Reddit account:

    >The amount of money which farmers can claim is determined by the amount of land "at their disposal" (1), which has prompted farmers to destroy forestry so that they can claim more. (2) Deforestation decreases biodiversity, increases soil erosion and increases the frequency and extent of flooding. (3)(4)

    **Since 2015 farmers can only claim if they have at least 5 hectares of land. (1) There were 19233 English farmers with less than 5 hectares of land (5)**, not accounting for Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish farmers simply because I couldn't find exact figures, so there will clearly be more farmers in Wales, Scotland and Northern island. So CAP discriminates against the smallest British farmers, so it's institutionalised discrimination. CAP gives a competitive advantage to the larger farmers, which contradicts its policy on state aid for example (6) and the reluctance on reforming the lesser duty rule (?), therefore the EU has taken part in institutionalised hypocrisy. The EU furthers economic inequality between farmers.

    Farmers must comply with crop diversification rule, otherwise known as “2 or 3 crop rule”. I think any increases in biodiversity here is negated by the increases in deforestation.

    Between 10 to 30 hectares of arable land farmers must grow two different crops. Largest crop must not cover 75% of arable land. More than 30 hectares of arable land and farmers must grow three different crops. Largest crop must not cover 75% of arable land. The two largest crops [together] must not cover 95% of arable land. Subject to conditions.

    (Check out these links; together you'll get the gist:
    http://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/revealed...-crop-rule.htm, http://www.nfuonline.com/archived-co...utter-madness/)

    Farmers under the age of 41 can claim more, so the EU takes part in institutionalised ageism. In essence the younger people (subject to conditions) are entitled to a 25% bonus to the average farmer’s entitlements, only counting their first 90 entitlements. Though this can be considered a good thing, because it incentivises younger people to become farmers.

    Isn't it funny that most of this can be found on the UK government website?

    I can't say however if CAP increases or decreases the suicide rates amongst British farmers. Unfortunately the suicide rates for British farmers is almost 4 times higher than the British average. (7)(8) But it sure could have done with a lot of reforms.

    A flaw for the environment argument is that I have yet to research the EAFRD. I have only researched the EAGF.

    (1) https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...final_v1.0.pdf

    (2) https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ming-subsidies

    (3) http://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html

    (4) http://www.livescience.com/23645-def...lt-floods.html

    (5) https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...the-uk-at-june

    (6) http://ec.europa.eu/competition/stat.../index_en.html

    (7) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ales2003to2014

    (8) http://www.samaritans.org/sites/defa...eport_2015.pdf

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.