The mental gymnastics in this post are hilarious.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
That housing idea sounds fair enough. We're not going into details obviously, but I agree that social housing is an important principle. Wouldn't you also agree that it's a leftist principle though? Cause it's an extension of the welfare state, so to speak deposited in the housing/rental market. In any case, I would certainly not expect a rightist government to enact change that would emphasize social housing in the way you are doing here.
So my sense is, if you don't mind, that you're actually leftist, or centre-leftist if you will. After all, all the examples you've brought up so far (NHS, education, social housing) firmly belong there, certainly in terms of first putting them into place. (Even if a rightist wouldn't break them down once created, they certainly would not instate them in this form.) So I'm not sure why you keep going on about the loony left. I guess you can appreciate the left as long as it's a bit centrist and they don't use the typical leftist jargon? Advocate for social housing without calling it socialism and using red campaigns signs?
(I guess your obsessions with italics is like mine with parenthesis btw.
)Could you give us any policy examples? Please be as specific as possible, so we all know where we stand.
No it’s not about causing offence, as far as I can tell you offend no-one. It was more a question about your perceptions and the conviction that goes with it, not the labels themselves. You are very keen to put people into buckets and layer all of these loony ideas on top of that, you ascribe various layers of motivations, principles and policy preferences into it, and then you talk about them in such loose terms that the people you were originally talking about and the end ideas appear to have no association to each other.
So the question was, are you sure they fit the label? If not, as you appear to be saying here, why do you power on ahead with such conviction when what follows can only make sense if the label fits in the first place? Why not try to find nuance in the debate, and find out from people what they actually think, rather than applying categorisation to their ideas and inventing sound bites to describe them that lose all link to the original point? That sort of seems like the easy way out. A variant of the straw man. But you spend so much time talking about these things, and say you’re interesting in hearing what others think, which is surely avoided when you use those tactics. What am I missing?
Welcome to the Brexit, Sir
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You are probably right in your assessment of me, but as I said I love 'labels' and I am not a big nuance person, I find that it clouds rather illuminates the issues. I suppose I am more of a 'if walks like a duck, makes a noise like a duck, etc'. Others on this thread have asked what I mean by 'loony' or 'loonyness', I take the normal definition, of mad or sillyness, whether it applies to individuals or collectives.
A good example (for me) is at the last two GE's, Labour at one point came up with one or two ideas , big ideas in many ways, which via polls seem to resonate with many people, even none Labour ones. However, instead of cultivating these and prioritising and hammering out the details and/or timescale, the 'loonyness' or sillyness took over and suddenly Labour was advocating lots of ideas, promising to 'do something' about all these issues, trying to 'hoover-up' as many votes as they perceived possible. Immediately people who might have been won over started to pull back, there were dips in the '+ve' polls, because there was a recognition that 'to do everything' was not feasible, that this was wishful thinking and probably these people had no idea how to prioritize and implement their plans.
It pains me to say this as an ex-Labour man, who (some would say) deserted well before the 'red wall' collapse, but the leftward surge, especially in terms of dogma, towards mad/sillyness has offered the Tories many years of power and will continue to do so, possible to the complete collapse of the Labour Party, as we now know it.
If there is any hope of a Labour Government, without recourse to the Blair years, then they have to return to understanding what the majority of people really want...as well as what they need.
I am interested in what others have to say, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with them, or them with me.
Yes there is a lot of vested interest in Land/ownership/social housing itself; these issues are long standing and in some case deep rooted. I recall at the time of the miners strike (first one) the Times (would you believe) did a full page spread on the land owned (at the time) by the then PM. It turned out what he and his family didn't own in Lanarkshire was not worth owning! Interestingly this article was displayed on the opposite page to a story about 'how greedy the Miners were'. This is a battle long overdue in the UK and until its resolved it is fundamental (in my view) to the openness and fairness and equality in society that many people speak of, ever being resolved.That housing idea sounds fair enough. We're not going into details obviously, but I agree that social housing is an important principle. Wouldn't you also agree that it's a leftist principle though? Cause it's an extension of the welfare state, so to speak deposited in the housing/rental market. In any case, I would certainly not expect a rightist government to enact change that would emphasize social housing in the way you are doing here.
So my sense is, if you don't mind, that you're actually leftist, or centre-leftist if you will. After all, all the examples you've brought up so far (NHS, education, social housing) firmly belong there, certainly in terms of first putting them into place. (Even if a rightist wouldn't break them down once created, they certainly would not instate them in this form.) So I'm not sure why you keep going on about the loony left. I guess you can appreciate the left as long as it's a bit centrist and they don't use the typical leftist jargon? Advocate for social housing without calling it socialism and using red campaigns signs?
(I guess your obsessions with italics is like mine with parenthesis btw.
I keep going on about the 'loony left' because it defeats the object. Lots of issues of all descriptions attach themselves to the Labour body-politic, all most like a virus, they swamp it and make Labour's basic message at times non-discernible, 'wood for the trees' etc. If Labour wants to be the majority party, the party in power, it has to be seen (at least) to represent the majority.
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...f-food-shortages-due-to-lack-of-lorry-drivers
UK facing summer of food shortages due to lack of lorry drivers
Loss of 100,000 hauliers due to Covid and Brexit will cause food ‘rolling power cuts’, experts warn
The worst part of it all
UK facing summer of food shortages due to lack of lorry drivers
Loss of 100,000 hauliers due to Covid and Brexit will cause food ‘rolling power cuts’, experts warn
The worst part of it all
Leave campaigners ‘surprised’ by decay in relations with EU, says David Frost
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...sed-by-sour-relations-with-eu-says-lord-frost
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...sed-by-sour-relations-with-eu-says-lord-frost
I do see the value of simplicity both your own understanding and for communicating with others, and I wouldn’t encourage others to follow my opposite extreme of nuance at all costs. It has obvious downsides; it’s slow, can inhibit decision making and it isn’t great for communicating to others. But if it’s good for anything it’s good for understanding things, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say nuance clouds an issue! If you work that one through logically I’m sure you’ll see it’s a fallacy.You are probably right in your assessment of me, but as I said I love 'labels' and I am not a big nuance person, I find that it clouds rather illuminates the issues. I suppose I am more of a 'if walks like a duck, makes a noise like a duck, etc'. Others on this thread have asked what I mean by 'loony' or 'loonyness', I take the normal definition, of mad or sillyness, whether it applies to individuals or collectives.
A good example (for me) is at the last two GE's, Labour at one point came up with one or two ideas , big ideas in many ways, which via polls seem to resonate with many people, even none Labour ones. However, instead of cultivating these and prioritising and hammering out the details and/or timescale, the 'loonyness' or sillyness took over and suddenly Labour was advocating lots of ideas, promising to 'do something' about all these issues, trying to 'hoover-up' as many votes as they perceived possible. Immediately people who might have been won over started to pull back, there were dips in the '+ve' polls, because there was a recognition that 'to do everything' was not feasible, that this was wishful thinking and probably these people had no idea how to prioritize and implement their plans.
It pains me to say this as an ex-Labour man, who (some would say) deserted well before the 'red wall' collapse, but the leftward surge, especially in terms of dogma, towards mad/sillyness has offered the Tories many years of power and will continue to do so, possible to the complete collapse of the Labour Party, as we now know it.
If there is any hope of a Labour Government, without recourse to the Blair years, then they have to return to understanding what the majority of people really want...as well as what they need.
I am interested in what others have to say, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with them, or them with me.
At the end of the day slogans and labels are mental shortcuts, under the broad header of mental models. They simplify complicated things by removing some of the less important stuff and make it easier for us to comprehend. But as we all know, all models are wrong, but some are useful. I wouldn’t argue your models are useless - it depends on what they’re used for, and how they’re used - but by their very nature, they are wrong.
Loosely related to that is the idea that the map is not the territory. So when you’re labelling people, you’re putting some locations on a map, but you’re talking about them as if they’re the territory. You’re acting as the simplistic versions you’ve created are real. But you’ve removed so much detail just to people to see it. The only way that wouldn’t be the case is if you had complete information and perfect judgment. But if that were true you wouldn’t use a map in the first place! Inevitably you’re removing some detail that is actually critical, because your judgment is imperfect.
Imagine you’re faced with a forest and you have three paths. You can take the shortcut, you can go up and around the forest, or you can walk through it. If you take the shortcut you’ll get through it quickly, but within a minute you won’t be able to see the wood for the trees. That’s fine if you’re only passing through, but you can’t get out the other side and say you saw it all. If you talk the longer drive up and around, you get this birds eye view of the forest, the complete structure, but you don’t see the details up close and it takes a bit longer. If you take the walking route you’re wasting time and getting into the roots, you don’t see the big picture, but you get a rich, deep understanding of the individual branches.
You take the shortcut every time but use slogans to suggest you’ve taken the birds eye view, and then apply labels to people as if you’ve taken the walking route and got to know those individuals. That’s not listening to what other people say to understand their views, it’s collecting information to categorise them.
When you say nuance clouds rather than illuminates, what you’re saying is it reduces the simplicity. That’s because the simplicity didn’t exist in the first place, you and the media you consume created it. No world is accurately portrayed by a model. That complication is reality. Choosing not to engage with the nuance is choosing not to engage with reality, because the model you’ve created is more comfortable for you ethically and morally. At the very least you owe it to your fellow citizens to recognise that because your voting choices are influenced by it.
How can nuance cloud rather than illuminate issues? Nuance allows you to understand differences and in society differences are generally the source of issues. By not being big on nuance you are essentially preventing yourself from understanding and fixing any issue.
In principle that's entirely correct, but it reminds me of the argument for getting 'both sides' of an argument on the news. Sometimes a point is so black and white, it doesn't need nuance or a conflicting opinion for 'balance'.
But that's a nuanced point.
Now seriously the point of nuance isn't balance but accuracy and it's not about things that are black or white but about things that may look similar but aren't.
Yep, it's the difference between balanced versus neutral but still looking into the finer points. The BBC are "balanced" which means they've got to show both sides of an argument in their charter, but if they were neutral they wouldn't necessarily have to.But that's a nuanced point.
Now seriously the point of nuance isn't balance but accuracy and it's not about things that are black or white but about things that may look similar but aren't.
I was listening to Nicky Campbell on the BBC bemoaning that they had to be balanced as it meant he had to listen to climate deniers etc.
Not really I am saying in many instances nuance can in fact increase complexity.
For me, as an individual, I am not big on nuance (which I think fits in with your perception of how I think) but I am not saying nuance is not important I am saying I am not particularly fond of nuance, for me it tends to cloud issues, and can 'set hares running' so to speak, leads to 'miss' understandings etc. but that is probably down to me and the way I reason.
Nuances for me tend in many instances to lead to 'eye-off-the -ball or 'small picture' or even 'off road' views, it introduces or adds slight differences to the main subject matter etc. I can understand that e.g. in translating language, nuances are very important; however in terms of politics getting over to a mass of people your views/intentions can get totally mislead when individual politicians use nuance and/or 'go off message' adding their own 'two pennyworth' as the saying goes.
Knowing where people are coming from is important and I accept that nuance can assist in understanding differences, but it can also put a different slant on discussions, and so called agreements, e.g. clearly the nuances involved in the N Irish Protocols have not enabled both sides to understand one another better.... or maybe I've missed something? Both signed the same agreement but clearly both have different views as to how it should be, or could be worked out in practice.
Nuance for me is a personal introspective thing in that it is what an individual uses to put their own slant on what they think someone else is doing or intending to do, and I accept in using 'labels' I am sometimes guilty of that myself, which is why I say I am not big on nuance!
Most likely never happened but a funny story nonetheless
Yeah we’re saying the same thing, simplicity and complexity are antonyms so when one goes up the other goes down. Nuance makes things less simple, or more complex.
We weren’t talking about nuance in relation to politicians and their messaging, but the nuance that you use and consider when other people share their views. You remove the detail that you deem irrelevant and end up with a simplified view that you find easier to label. That’s not really listening to people.
That’s a model of reality, not reality. It’s a model of reality you’re more comfortable with. And it informs how you judge other people and how you vote. Surely you can understand why people take issue with that?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Good thread that.
Any Brexiteers on here care to explain how this is going to benefit the UK?
Reason number 7453 why you never go full (or any type of ) Brexit. It's actually more complicated but Brexiters have so much more to discover.
They probably haven't even started work on what the requirements are for UKCA.
Not really, I remove that which I (already) know to be a falsehood, or what seems to me (as if they are) 'spinning a tale', or sometimes only being relevant to whatever 'label' others have given to themselves. I suppose in that sense I do 'filter' what people tell me, but not just according to my beliefs (or I hope not) my prejudices, but to other reference points relevant to what is being discussed. So perhaps I am, in your parlance, applying some kind of nuance... and not realising it?
I disagree with your point about politicians, half the problems we have with politics is the nuanced bits!
Oh god will no one think of Wimbledon?
The filtering process you describe removes nuance, it doesn’t add or apply it. That’s just based on the normal definition of nuance, not something of my own concoction. You can read @JPRouve ’s discussion of it for another angle of it.
I haven’t offered an opinion on politicians and their use of nuance so you can’t really disagree with my opinion on it. Unless you’ve labelled me and then given me an assumed opinion on the subject that fits the label!
Quite right, you excluded politicians from the discussion, see below
However I was using nuance in relation to politicians and their messages! So were you not also guilty of removing detail you deemed irrelevant and not listening to what I was saying?
pot...kettle...black !!!
Do you have a negative example of nuance used by politicians?Quite right, you excluded politicians from the discussion, see below
However I was using nuance in relation to politicians and their messages! So were you not also guilty of removing detail you deemed irrelevant and not listening to what I was saying?
pot...kettle...black !!!
Yes quite a lot of politicians nuance their comments about e.g. immigration negatively
Not sure if it was your intended reference but actually Trump saying he'd like immigration from Scandinavia and not from the "shithole countries" is a kind of negative nuance. Previously I had thought nuance was intrinsically positive but I guess you're right.
Perhaps in most forms of debate/exchange of ideas, it is, but in my opinion, in politics there is just as much negative as positive nuance.
Can you give me an actual example?
So you’ve went from disagreeing with my imaginary opinion on nuance to now concocting an imaginary form of hypocrisy. Good one.Quite right, you excluded politicians from the discussion, see below
However I was using nuance in relation to politicians and their messages! So were you not also guilty of removing detail you deemed irrelevant and not listening to what I was saying?
pot...kettle...black !!!
You wanted to talk about both forms of nuance, I was only talking about one. Not engaging in a conversation about something is not the same thing as ignoring it or replacing it with a view more befitting of someone with your label because I believe my own estimation of a stranger is more valid than that stranger’s shared opinion.
I hear your opinion, I consider it valid, I don’t have any reason to disbelieve it and it forms part of my understanding of your wider views. I’m just not interested in that angle of the discussion, but you’re more than welcome to discuss it with other people. I’m sure there’s plenty of room for nuanced debate.
Oh, so you were of an imaginary opinion on nuance? not quite sure I follow that, but if you say so!
Clearly there has been some misunderstanding I believed all our discussion was based on my view of politicians and their use of nuance in their messaging, (which could be positive or negative) and as result, my perceived tendency to label certain groups e.g. 'the loony left', you however chose to view that as being invalid... fair enough.
It seems their are others who want to take me up on these matters, but it would appear most don't want to enter into the detail that you were prepared to go into, thank you for your debate.
Why don't you give me one, like @Abizzz did?
Why would I do that when I'm trying to understand your point?
If you genuinely wished to understand my point, then may I suggest you read the exchange of posts between myself and @Brwned on this matter.
I read them and you didn't answer my simple question, nor answered any relevant questions.