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

Brexit-supporting students getting abuse on campus Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Not sure why you mention your right to vote or express an opinion, I never questioned that other than if you were underage to vote for real. I simply commented on what your opinion says about you. That's a very important difference. I then gave an example of pretty much the only sort of justification you gave for your opinion which was "it was fine before".

    So again, I feel vindicated in my statement a out you given you fail to appreciate some key factors and instead went on a rant about how I am supposedly attacking you personally for no reason.
    Apologies if "going on a rant" was how you interpreted my post but I didn't intend it to come across as claiming to be personally attacked by you. In my last reply, I admitted to a lack of political knowledge; I did so because I wanted to make that clear in case someone attempted to have a political debate with me. I am unable to engage in a debate in politics due to my lack of knowledge. With that in mind, my statement that Britain was fine before it joined the EU probably was from being misinformed on the issue, which I apologise for. I don't believe I'm failing to see the "key issues" however as I know the arguments for Remain. Not so much the arguments for Leave.

    I will repeat though that I just wanted to make a point that not all Brexiters are racist/xenophobic. Some probably are, but not all because I am neither of those. I do not intend to get into a debate because I will admit I'm unable to hold a debate about a topic (politics, in this instance) I don't have much knowledge about. My point was made in my original post. I didn't require any political knowledge to make that point. I do not feel the need to defend myself or my opinion anymore.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Then prey tell who would you trust on the matter? A halfwit politician who was hired expressly because they don't know anything, Or a an economist/financier/analyst etc. etc. etc. whose job and livelihood are built around being learned in the field?
    Also out of interest would you call experts like Scholes, Merton, Miller etc. etc. who have all won nobel prizes for their work in finance part of this left wing 'propaganda' conspiracy because theyre experts and academics?
    The Pot appears to be calling the kettle black.
    Politicians are only hired in the EU institutions, everywhere else they are elected.

    I don't believe the majority of our current political class have integrity either, but the point is economists serve vested interests or base their assessment on often flawed assumptions, then all copy each other. Their job certainly doesn't depend on accurate predictions, otherwise there would be very few left.

    I have no objection to the principle of studies in economics, and those who made important developments. Where did I say it was a left wing conspiracy?

    The word expert is rather silly anyway since those who know the most about anything also know how much they don't know the most.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    All the students I know who voted Leave (not many) are now completely silent on it, but thats more because they regret their vote, rather than being abused.

    In NI there really is difficulty in finding justifiable reasons to vote Leave - so this is less of an issue.

    Do expect better of students though, most people I know voted Leave for a logical reason (anti-EU, sovereignty, immigration) and its really worrying that these students feel silenced
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hey_Its_Cerian)
    Well, I'm 16 and I have an immigrant friend from Lithuania. There are a few immigrants at our school who I have no problem with. In fact, I have nothing against immigrants, and yet I voted Leave in our school's referendum last year. I really don't get why Remainers feel the need to judge others because of their political opinion. Like, really? It's pathetic. I will admit that some Brexiters are probably xenophobic, but I'm nothing of the sort. And resorting to calling them "racist"? Like, really? Racism is the discrimination of one because of their ethnicity...the colour of their skin! I don't know people confuse that with xenophobia. People who discriminate immigrants are not racist unless said immigrant is black. If they discrimate against a black immigrant, for example, they're racist and xenophobic. Discriminating against an immigrant is just xenophobia.

    And no, I didn't vote Leave in a poxy school referendum because I hate immigrants. I voted Leave because I have the freedom of opinion and I'm not afraid to voice it. I voted Leave because Britain was fine before it joined the EU in 1973, so why wouldn't we be fine now? Some Brexiters probably did vote Leave purely from their hatred of immigrants, but this does not make them racist. They're xenophobic, and people should know the difference between the two. I just don't get why Remainers believe we're all derogatory racists/xenophobes. Stop stereotyping people because of their political beliefs.
    So you voted to leave because Britain was fine before it joined the EU (which is debatable in of itself) meaning we'll also be fine now. For real, on a scale of "****ing retarded" to 10 how well thought out do you think that reason was? Genuinely curious.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Terry Tibbs)
    So you voted to leave because Britain was fine before it joined the EU (which is debatable in of itself) meaning we'll also be fine now. For real, on a scale of "****ing retarded" to 10 how well thought out do you think that reason was? Genuinely curious.
    There's a valid point that you don't need to be an EU member to be successful and prosperous, as you may believe had you listened to Osbourne and Cameron.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    There's a valid point that you don't need to be an EU member to be successful and prosperous, as you may believe had you listened to Osbourne and Cameron.
    Eh? The whole question about brexit has been about whether or not we can be successful and prosperous outside the EU. My point is "we were successful before - we can be successful again" is a weak and piss poor argument, you can't be serious to suggest otherwise.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    Politicians are only hired in the EU institutions, everywhere else they are elected.

    I don't believe the majority of our current political class have integrity either, but the point is economists serve vested interests or base their assessment on often flawed assumptions, then all copy each other. Their job certainly doesn't depend on accurate predictions, otherwise there would be very few left.

    I have no objection to the principle of studies in economics, and those who made important developments. Where did I say it was a left wing conspiracy?

    The word expert is rather silly anyway since those who know the most about anything also know how much they don't know the most.
    Oh rubbish.
    Everyone has vested interests that hardly makes their point of view worthy of being binned though. Unless you just want to guess at how the economy will go? Mmm it generally helps but then again clairvoyance is a myth.
    You just object to anyone who claims to know anything about how it works?
    They're still infinitely more trust worthy than people who know nothing about it, like your average BREXIT voter.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    What a lovely chap you sound.
    Bullying at school is one thing, but if you're getting bullied at university then you're just an idiot.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny Dorito)
    A group of students have claimed that they have received a lot of abuse while on university campuses because they voted leave in the Brexit vote. From being called a "racist b****" to challenging their intelligence, student Brexiteers have been made to feel that they can't express their views without being abused.

    You can read the story and watch the video here.

    What do you make of this? Do / did you receive abuse from fellow students because of how you voted?
    If that’s the case these students should be expelled from University for their hate of Brexit. That would suit a lot of us.
    I want to study medicine or architecture and if all remainers are expelled from Uni then I’d get the place I deserve without having to jump through hoops to even get considered for the course.

    If we show our support of Brexit then the state should show its appreciation and make it easier and cheaper to enter uni.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder if those on the left or at least the bullying abusive ones and the left will ever realise or come to terms with the part they played in the brexit vote going the way it did.
    I personally know two people who were unsure whether they were going to vote but were slightly leaning towards a yes until they saw the advert of the Asian granny sitting on a seesaw opposite a foul abusive skinhead and realised that they were being depicted as a foul abusive skinhead.
    The certainly voted leave after that.
    Clinton and the media have never really acknowledged the part they played in Trump's triumph with the months of pouring she*t on Trump and calling ordinary voters deplorables. The way they are going he will be in for 8 years.
    It's like a built in refusal to learn lessons
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants."

    If anything, so-called "free thinkers" are the detriment to progress, especially in an academic setting. There's a reason we study work that's been done already, it's because without that knowledge and experience to base stuff on we'd be back to the stone age. The same is true when it comes to politics and economics.

    We should challenge accepted truth when there is reason to do so by all means, but rejecting prior knowledge for no better reason than to "challenge authority" is seriously misguided.
    Don't drag Newton into your abject nonsense. Newton was one of the most original thinkers of all time, let alone his day, who pissed off large parts of the academic establishment at various points but didn't really care.

    You can point to multiple points in scientific progress where a new theory has stood in direct challenge to established orthodoxy. Einstein shook things up with general relativity, but was himself firmly in the camp opposed to quantum theory. The scientific method is all about letting ideas stand on their own merits and trusting vigorous debate to reveal the truth.

    If you can't see the difference between that and simply ignoring prior work you are a fool.

    If remainers in universities can't stomach a bit of debate that says, to me, that they can simply want to shield their argument's (obvious) fragilities from scrutiny.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just my opinion)
    I wonder if those on the left or at least the bullying abusive ones and the left will ever realise or come to terms with the part they played in the brexit vote going the way it did.
    I personally know two people who were unsure whether they were going to vote but were slightly leaning towards a yes until they saw the advert of the Asian granny sitting on a seesaw opposite a foul abusive skinhead and realised that they were being depicted as a foul abusive skinhead.
    The certainly voted leave after that.
    Clinton and the media have never really acknowledged the part they played in Trump's triumph with the months of pouring she*t on Trump and calling ordinary voters deplorables. The way they are going he will be in for 8 years.
    It's like a built in refusal to learn lessons
    So what you're trying to say they voted for brexit because they're snowflakes, how ironic.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Terry Tibbs)
    So what you're trying to say they voted for brexit because they're snowflakes, how ironic.
    This narrative* where anyone who ever gets annoyed by anything is a 'snowflake' is just banal. People get annoyed by various stuff, they react in a way which normally isn't completely over the top, whatever.

    Did the leave voters in that story ever throw a tantrum, loudly demand people never be allowed to critisise them and demand a safe space where they'd never have to hear anyone say pro-EU things? No, they just voted in a way you'd rather they hadn't.

    * Edit for clarification: I mean this new narrative from lefties on TSR who are reacting to the normal snowflake narrative in the right wing press, which has clearly touched a nerve.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    This narrative where anyone who ever gets annoyed by anything is a 'snowflake' is just banal. People get annoyed by various stuff, they react in a way which normally isn't completely over the top, whatever.
    It's no secret that the kind of people who use the word "snowflake" are the type to have voted for brexit, so it's a tad funny when they cry over being called racist/xenophobic etc.

    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Did the leave voters in that story ever throw a tantrum, loudly demand people never be allowed to critisise them and demand a safe space where they'd never have to hear anyone say pro-EU things? No, they just voted in a way you'd rather they hadn't.
    Yes, most devout brexiteers have that mentality.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Terry Tibbs)
    It's no secret that the kind of people who use the word "snowflake" are the type to have voted for brexit, so it's a tad funny when they cry over being called racist/xenophobic etc.

    Yes, most devout brexiteers have that mentality.
    Oh come off it. The examples of 'snowflake' students and lefties are things where they've taken a relatively minor or esoteric issue and blown it out of all proportion. Rhodes must fall, for instance, or those people who want to remove Ovid from classics syllabi. Even they it's not the fact that they're offended that's a problem per se so much as the completely over the top way they react to it.

    Having it intimated that's you're racist if you believe it untrue is annoying, and complaining about that is surely legitimate? Yea some leavers are a bit precious about it, but let's not even begin to compare it to the nonsense on the other side.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Oh come off it. The examples of 'snowflake' students and lefties are things where they've taken a relatively minor or esoteric issue and blown it out of all proportion. Rhodes must fall, for instance, or those people who want to remove Ovid from classics syllabi. Even they it's not the fact that they're offended that's a problem per se so much as the completely over the top way they react to it.

    Having it intimated that's you're racist if you believe it untrue is annoying, and complaining about that is surely legitimate? Yea some leavers are a bit precious about it, but let's not even begin to compare it to the nonsense on the other side.
    I've never heard about the Rhodes must fall argument. And what's ovid's new crimen?
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Don't drag Newton into your abject nonsense. Newton was one of the most original thinkers of all time, let alone his day, who pissed off large parts of the academic establishment at various points but didn't really care.

    You can point to multiple points in scientific progress where a new theory has stood in direct challenge to established orthodoxy. Einstein shook things up with general relativity, but was himself firmly in the camp opposed to quantum theory. The scientific method is all about letting ideas stand on their own merits and trusting vigorous debate to reveal the truth.

    If you can't see the difference between that and simply ignoring prior work you are a fool.

    If remainers in universities can't stomach a bit of debate that says, to me, that they can simply want to shield their argument's (obvious) fragilities from scrutiny.
    There's a difference between rejecting prior knowledge due to evidence of its flaws and rejecting it because of your own ideology. Einstein is an excellent example in fact, he is widely considered to have wasted the latter half of his career because of his dogmatic refusal to accept quantum theory, in spite of the scientific evidence to hand. Instead he spent all his time searching fruitlessly for a non-existent grand unified theory.

    The point is that rejecting established truths should be done based on knowledge, not ideals. Students, especially undergrads, ought to be making use of expert opinion as much as they can. Going down the rebellious "free-thinker" route is not likely to lead to groundbreaking discoveries, it's just going to make them look like an imbecile when it becomes clear that they've made a rookie mistake.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    There's a difference between rejecting prior knowledge due to evidence of its flaws and rejecting it because of your own ideology. Einstein is an excellent example in fact, he is widely considered to have wasted the latter half of his career because of his dogmatic refusal to accept quantum theory, in spite of the scientific evidence to hand. Instead he spent all his time searching fruitlessly for a non-existent grand unified theory.

    The point is that rejecting established truths should be done based on knowledge, not ideals. Students, especially undergrads, ought to be making use of expert opinion as much as they can. Going down the rebellious "free-thinker" route is not likely to lead to groundbreaking discoveries, it's just going to make them look like an imbecile when it becomes clear that they've made a rookie mistake.
    It's easy to post-rationalise Einstein's actions, but I'd argue the same character traits which led him to steadfastly reject quantum theory were the very same which enabled him to push some pretty controversial so strongly earlier in his career.

    In subjects like physics or maths I can buy your argument that undergrads have not earnt the right to break the mould. In those cases basically everything you learn at that level will have been long-established and will have been subjected to very rigorous testing. But on subjective, non-scientific topics like politics or economics there is no hard consensus, at best you have prevailing opinions which change frequently. To expect students to rally round unquestioningly is ridiculous. There are economists who were in favour of Brexit, and just because it was a minority is insufficient to shut down the whole debate. Likewise the wildly-overblown rhetoric of remainer economists is already being exposed.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    It's easy to post-rationalise Einstein's actions, but I'd argue the same character traits which led him to steadfastly reject quantum theory were the very same which enabled him to push some pretty controversial so strongly earlier in his career.
    Perhaps. Obviously with the benefit of hindsight his actions look 100% crazy, but the idea of a unified theory would've had at least some traction at the time.

    (Original post by Rinsed)
    In subjects like physics or maths I can buy your argument that undergrads have not earnt the right to break the mould. In those cases basically everything you learn at that level will have been long-established and will have been subjected to very rigorous testing. But on subjective, non-scientific topics like politics or economics there is no hard consensus, at best you have prevailing opinions which change frequently. To expect students to rally round unquestioningly is ridiculous. There are economists who were in favour of Brexit, and just because it was a minority is insufficient to shut down the whole debate. Likewise the wildly-overblown rhetoric of remainer economists is already being exposed.
    I think even in the more woolly realms of politics and economics there's still no justification for supporting a claim without evidence. If students want to back Brexit that's fine, but if they can't rationally justify it they can fully expect to be ridiculed for that. Not abused, though. That's crossing a line, as I think pretty much everyone agrees here.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    Perhaps. Obviously with the benefit of hindsight his actions look 100% crazy, but the idea of a unified theory would've had at least some traction at the time.

    I think even in the more woolly realms of politics and economics there's still no justification for supporting a claim without evidence. If students want to back Brexit that's fine, but if they can't rationally justify it they can fully expect to be ridiculed for that. Not abused, though. That's crossing a line, as I think pretty much everyone agrees here.
    This is a far cry from your original statement that students had a duty to defer politically to their superiors.

    And you're rather starting from the position that Brexit-favouring students will be less rational and informed than their remainer brethren.

    I should also point out that the weight of actual evidence against, say, Corbyn-style-economics is greater than against Brexit. The actual evidence that Brexit would be bad was poor. The economic arguments were more frequently emotion and conjecture dressed up in academic language. For instance George Osborne's ludicrous treasury forecasts, whose methodology was insupportable. The evidence against Corbyn's economic ideas is strong because they're not original and have failed before. Would you make the same sort of comments about Corbynista students? The irony is that there is greater support for Corbyn in economics departments...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 10, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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