I answered a number of times, but it seems you didn't like the answer or may be misunderstood it, so presumably we are not going to get much further with these one liners.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Politically speaking that's a pretty large schism, that's not nuanced at all. And nuance is neither positive nor negative, it's a simple observation of two things/concepts that are close but different.
You didn't answer my question once. And Abizz example isn't nuanced, it's a fairly big distinction.
UK poorest nation per capita in northwest Europe, research shows
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...-shows/ar-AALxLdV?li=BBoPRmx&ocid=mailsignout
'Mr Johnson has promised that Brexit will lead to a “national renewal” and boost Britain’s economic opportunities around the world.
But recent analysis by The Independent of recent studies on the UK’s GDP shows the damage done by Brexit equates to a loss of between £400m and £800m a week.'
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...-shows/ar-AALxLdV?li=BBoPRmx&ocid=mailsignout
'Mr Johnson has promised that Brexit will lead to a “national renewal” and boost Britain’s economic opportunities around the world.
But recent analysis by The Independent of recent studies on the UK’s GDP shows the damage done by Brexit equates to a loss of between £400m and £800m a week.'
ab
I cannot help it if you don't like my answer and @Abizzz's example would meet the criteria that I would apply for 'political' nuance.
You didn't answer, I asked you to give me an example and you responded with asking me to provide one instead. I don't dislike your answer and I don't have an example.
Now, if Abizzz example meet your criterias then tell me where do you see a nuance, what are the two things that are alike? Surely you realize that making the statement that on one side you have scandinavian countries and on other the side shithole countries is anything but nuanced, it is a strong distinction which is at the opposite end of a nuance(subtle) distinction.
If anything that's a good example of simplification of the political debate more than an example of nuanced political discourse.
Before reading it: there's little traffic
After reading it: there's little traffic
Still waiting to see second British truck of the year on motorway around our area during the time I've been driving on them this year.
To put it into context, 10000's of French naturally, 1000s of Spanish, 100s of Belgian, Polish, Romanian, Portuguese, Italian, German, Bulgarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Dutch.
Dozens of all the other EU countries even from Sweden, Finland, Norway, Turkey.
One from GB and one from Ireland. Normally would be in the 100s.
If we are making subtle distinctions then your assertion that I did not provide an answer is exactly that, I did provide an answer sometime back, true I did not repeat it because you had not accepted my original answer, so there seemed little point in repeating it as you were clearly going to keep rejecting it.
The whole point (as far as I am concerned) is with nuance in terms of political messaging.
It is that those using such terms, in this case Donald Trump, do make 'labelled ' statements that for such as Trump passes for nuance. Politicians generally rely on nuance as an excuse for misunderstanding, by others, of what they have said, Boris is a past master of this. Politicians know that depending on however/whoever reports on their announcement it will be nuanced (positively or negatively) in the way its received, e.g. on what is perceived as 'biased' reporting on the BBC (and elsewhere)
I am not arguing that nuance is not subtle distinction, but that within the context of politics there is both negative and positive aspects and many politicians rely on this to, at best mislead, at worse be economical with the truth. The phrase "You might think that, but I can't possibly comment" springs to mind.
The example I gave was in terms of immigration. Politicians of all persuasions have relied on the nuance of this term to positively or negatively define not only the process but of those involved, sometimes not making and/or making the distinction between, legal or illegal immigrants; between asylum seekers and those seeking economic improvements in their lives, between (assumed poor) would be immigrants (mostly refugees) who are left behind in camps and those perceived to have money, who can pay people traffickers to smuggled them into a country. etc.
Okay, you didn't give an example but I think that I get your point. What you are talking about is obfuscation, which is indeed routinely used by politicians or anyone dealing with people that may not have all the tools to understand a particular topic. You are confusing terms and ideas because the concept of nuance is neither positive nor negative. Also oversimplification and labelling are tools used while attempting obfuscation.
An example of what you are discribing would be the use of terms like "loony left" or "shithole countries", these terms are catchy but unintelligible, you make a distinction but do not qualify it, it doesn't actually fit with a nuanced approach which sees you qualify what you are observing and adding accuracy, making it clearer.
This potentially cuts me and many others off at the knees. Not in a big way, and I swallow several pints of privilege as I complain…
But up until this announcement I had the ability and desire to work 4 weeks of every year in Europe. Rent our house out, get a rental overseas, take a job lot of Monitors and Laptops and Cables and Extension cords with us, with Income vs Flights & Accomodation being a wash. Our employers cap ‘overseas work’ at 28 days.
Now… both of our employers have made it clear that all overseas Roaming costs are no longer covered.
That’s a TINY and almost irrelevant footnote in anyone’s life, but it’s just shit. I upload/download huge files every single day. A few days without wifi would see me facing huge bills.
There’s not really a story there, beyond pointing out that theoretically, I’m the Tory target demographic. I voted Remain as I’m a functioning empathetic adult, but I work with a lot of Tory party members. The owners are Team Blue. These people grew up blue. Went to Eton and Oxbridge, but still exist in Unicorn world. They criticise the EU for this, while punishing employees for the new policies. But most of the company is livid. All of them wealthier than me.
Something has gotta give. At some point. Surely. I’m a working class kid that now accidentally lives a middle class life. None of these people will vote Labour. But they’ll vote Lib Dem quite happily. There’s something in that. I hope.
/Rant
Did the Matic guy drop the word Coup from his dictionary and replace it with Nuance?
I don’t even care who’s right or wrong, but it feels insanely Meta that people can’t agree that the word Nuance has some Nuance.
I don’t even care who’s right or wrong, but it feels insanely Meta that people can’t agree that the word Nuance has some Nuance.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
"Come on! Get your act together!" Well mate, they had their act together very well. It was called EU membership.
Although I don't know if it is harder now for UK artists than for artists from other non-EU countries to tour inside the EU - in which case he does have a point.
It depends. Non-EU countries means little, some have bilateral agreements others don't and it's also something that is often negotiated at national level. There isn't a moment where he has a point, his country had international treaties that made his professional life easier, he voted to get rid of them and he got what he wanted.
Yeah, I was thinking about that as well. I couldn't bring up Switzerland or Norway or Canada as examples - but I'd be curious about the comparison with the US in this particular instance. (I.e., artists touring.)
I think your second point is a little too black and white though. He likely didn't vote for Brexit purely from the perspective of his work as an artist; he more likely considered other things and figured it shouldn't hurt his touring work too much, since artists from non-EU countries do tour across Europe all the time (the US probably being the best example). And it is true either way that the UK severely messed up Brexit. The current mess certainly wasn't the only possible outcome after the vote had come through. 'Get your act together' summarizes that pretty well actually - although he could basically have said that at any moment since the vote.
FoM was at the center of the Brexit debate and if you decide to unilaterally repeal the treaties that give you freedom of movement then you can't complain when your freedom of movement is limited. And he knew about it, he put it down as project fear while talking about Putin not ruling their country.
Of course, but without full FoM, there an be various kinds of more limited FoM that non-member states can anyway enjoy. But maybe I'm overestimating what the UK would have been able to achieve in that regard under a more competent government - especially if they would have anyway wanted a pretty hard Brexit. And I have no idea what Dickinson has been saying otherwise about Brexit.
It's not about competency but goals issue. The existence of Freedom of movement is based on both sides having the same definition and goals for said freedom of movement which was exactly one of the arguments in favor of Brexit. You are essentially looking at it as if Brexit wasn't a thing or that FoM was a collateral damage when it was a centerpiece in the debate and how brexit was sold to voters(End of FoM and take back control of our borders).
I still think that's two black and white though. A country like the US has all the sovereignty that Brexiteers were looking for, yet its artists tour in Europe all the time. So clearly they can have some movement nonetheless. (I'll stop using FoM, it's probably more specifically defined than how I was using it.) I don't actually know if it's harder now for UK artists than for US artists to tour Europe, but that's what Dickinson might be thinking of.
British artists can have movement, they just have more procedures to follow, they require work permits and authorizations to transport materials such as instruments. US and canadian artists also require a temporary work permit, iirc they don't need a visa under 90 days.
If you take say a group or an artist from the US or any other country, they will have a team of people organising visas, work permits with the various EU countries who all have their own rules (surprise!) for the artist or groups or all their staff and roadies etc. Not forgetting the clearance through customs and temporary importation of their equipment and instruments etc. Travel ,insurance, licences etc.
All it means is there is just a lot more work and bureaucracy whereas before it was simple. Brexiters just didn't know what they voted for.
Unfortunately the moaning will get louder and louder from the Brexiters as the decade goes on as grace periods end gradually over the next months and years.
Yeah, that's what I meant at the end of my previous post. (Admittedly I didn't really finish that thought.) Maybe Dickinson is seeing e.g. US artists tour Europe and thinking 'if they can do it, why can't I?' - without realizing that they can do it because they've done the work around visas, permits etc, exactly like he has to now. I don't know whether the rules for UK and US artists are the same now though. If it's harder for UK artists now, then Dickinson has a point. And more generally, a soft Brexit might have made this much easier as well. (No idea what he supported himself though. If he's a hard Brexit guy, then he's an idiot for complaining about this now, obviously.)
Paul might hit the nail on the head in the middle if his post there. Brexiters have been seeing non-EU people deal with the EU all this time, and only now realize that those dealings actually always came with quite a lot of effort.
Problem was that ending freedom of movement they thought it meant just for EU citizens in the UK but didn't apply to UK citizens in the EU.
As for soft vs hard Brexit I'd bet the moaning would be even greater. It would be we have to follow EU rules and can't have a say in them.
Be interesting to know what Dickinson thought he would gain by voting for Brexit.
Oh, yeah, in general - but I'm trying to have some understanding for where Dickinson specifically is coming from with his comments. Of course, no Brexit variant would have made all Brexiters happy, let alone the entire UK. The best outcome for any kind of unity would have been a hard defeat in the vote, cause that would have forced the Brexiters to shut up. But even a narrow defeat would have led to a shitshow.
We wouldn't have won had we been in the EU.
what with this now and the vaccines brexit has been a resounding success
Announcement of the post-Brexit state aid and subsidy system:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...es-boost-the-economy-and-strengthen-the-union
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...es-boost-the-economy-and-strengthen-the-union
Oh dear who's nuancing now?
I did give an answer, relating to immigration, ... but glad you managed to understand the example I didn't give.
You didn't give me an example of nuance, you elaborated on something else which allowed me to understand your initial point which isn't about nuance.Oh dear who's nuancing now?
I did give an answer, relating to immigration, ... but glad you managed to understand the example I didn't give.
Finally no more EU bureaucracy is needed when one is shoveling public money to friends.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I believe in the context of political messaging that politicians of all persuasions rely on nuance, especially in sensitive areas like immigration, where they know that commentators and the general public will scrutinise their statements and outputs and seek to nuance/shade of meaning of the political expressions that fits their beliefs. As much as anything this is to ensure politicians stay on the right side of the law!
Politiicans do not like nuance because nuance often prevent cleavage or limits its effects, political parties rely on ideological schisms, that's how they convince people to vote for them regardless of people's personal interests. That's why sometimes people will use terms like loony left, that's why when talking about immigration they will often put entire populations against each others for example EU citizens against the rest, that's why instead of making an accurate point about immigration laws they will claim that they are not sovereign and that they don't have control of their immigration laws, that's why they will sometimes have on one side scandinavian countries and on the other side shithole countries.
And that's particularly true when you have a bipartisan context.
Let's see how the EU try to punish us for beating their precious Germany.
They already tried to take the final away from Wembley, the scoundrels.
No they don't like it when it works against them, but many do seek to make use of a nuance approach especially when dealing with sensitive issues, virtue signalling is a particular good one at the present time and occurs in all sorts of areas, where politicians rely on the nuance factor.
I hope we make Nigel Farage captain so he can lift the trophy at Wembley