Millennials, Please Just Shut Up

[Laika]

You must not be paying attention. We have a lot of nationalists and conservatives on this board. We also had/have racists (apparently we have a neo-Nazi now, as well...). There's more nationalists on this site than there are socialists and communists.

I'd rather debate a neo-nazi who can say publicly they are a racist, than someone who trolls racist comments and then cowardly calls it "free speech". The weakness and deception are the problem because it shows how irrational the basis of those views are and that they are not capable or willing to discuss them. if someone were to try to defend far right views on the basis of being informed and making clear why they hold such views, so long as it is a minority and do not simply abuse everyone else, that is reasonable (if discomforting). It's better when you have people who make clear where they stand, grasp that others do not necessarily have to agree with them and as a community we can learn to live with that.

The far right is becoming a powerful force in the world. It would be far better for everyone if we knew why rather than engage in two faced debates over how wrong it is that fascists and racists are being denied free speech by political correctness when they would deny it to others. If someone is racist and doesn't have the courage to say so, that tells you a lot about how poorly they value their own opinion and themselves. Political correctness has failed as a mechanism for dealing with it. Now We need to discuss racism directly, stop pretending it isn't there rather than give comfort to the irrationality of those who want to be racist and not accept responsibility for the problems it causes. I sincerely doubt that many of the conservatives and nationalists on RF are really of the calibre to actually pose a physical threat to other people beyond having deeply offensive views. The problem is whether they may well enable people who would and we have to make them face up to that possibility.

I have edited this post several times trying to find a decent answer but really I think having a few members like that on RF is the best defence against it affecting more people on the forums. When we understand what these things really mean in practice we may give people the pause for thought on both sides of the debate they really need.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

- They vote to leave the EU because of too many EU-Immigrants,
- too many EU regulations and
- not enough say in important matters

- after they left they want to be part of the common market
...
- oh and they'll still have to pay the EU, though it would probably only be around half what they pay now

Out of curiosity, did you factor in the fact that the UK sees a lot of money back in the form of rebates? Without those we'll probably end up actually paying in more... Those rebates are thanks to... *squirms* Margaret Thatcher? *pukes*

Sorry, I can't say anything in her favour without the Scottish part of me reacting quite badly.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yeap and the young voters who didn't vote have no one to blame but themselves and their lack of political participation. They screwed themselves over.

They will have a very long working life to repent at leisure, the state pension age will continue to rise in the UK.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Is anyone else uncomfortable that such a move had such a ripple? One country voted to withdraw from such a union, but yet it sent a wave to the heart and soul of pretty much every "developed" country, even though, ideally, the state and markets shouldn't be so intimately linked.

If the exit vote was a strike against globalization, then the results in the markets are simply an indication of how far globalization has actually gone, at least among the holders of wealth in the world...most of the wealth is held by a small fraction of the individuals in mostly the most advanced nations. Robert Reich wrote a book some years back called "The Work of Nations," patterned as an extension of the classic "The Wealth of Nations." In his update of the theme of capitalism and government, Reich explained that in the 1700s, capitalism needed national governments to flourish but the push for international trade and globalization of cultures now needs the barriers between governments to be reduced.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is no different from British civil servants;

Or the House of Lords.

Or the monarchy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The referendum is over. We are Out. That's it. We don't want to rejoin EU. A majority vote is a majority vote, even if it was only marginal. How hard is this for young people to understand?

There was already a majority vote: in 1975, the referendum on whether to stay in the European Community came in at 66% for "remain".

The whole idea behind this most recent referendum is that government policy should change as the people's opinions change. If the people's opinion changes back to "remain" being in the majority, why shouldn't that majority have its opinion honoured?

If a referendum's result is supposed to be binding for all time, then the matter was already settled: the UK should be staying in the EU. However, if a referendum can be reconsidered, then last week's referendum can be reconsidered, too.

 

[Rival]

There was already a majority vote: in 1975, the referendum on whether to stay in the European Community came in at 66% for "remain".

The whole idea behind this most recent referendum is that government policy should change as the people's opinions change. If the people's opinion changes back to "remain" being in the majority, why shouldn't that majority have its opinion honoured?

If a referendum's result is supposed to be binding for all time, then the matter was already settled: the UK should be staying in the EU. However, if a referendum can be reconsidered, then last week's referendum can be reconsidered, too.

It wasn't even the 'E.U.' back then. It wasn't the same thing, and there was still widespread scepticism, even from Thatcher.

 

[Rival]

Or the House of Lords.

Or the monarchy.

I personally don't support either of these institutions. I hope for a republic one day. One day

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It wasn't even the 'E.U.' back then.

No, but the EC was similar to the EU in a lot of ways. The EU is the successor to the EC.

It wasn't the same thing, and there was still widespread scepticism, even from Thatcher.

Yes... 33% of the people who care enough to vote is still "widespread". It's almost as widespread as the 48% who voted to remain last week.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I personally don't support either of these institutions. I hope for a republic one day. One day

I hope you're not counting on the millenials you just told to "just shut up" to make that happen.

 

[Rival]

No, but the EC was similar to the EU in a lot of ways. The EU is the successor to the EC.


Yes... 33% of the people who care enough to vote is still "widespread". It's almost as widespread as the 48% who voted to remain last week.

More people turned out to vote in the EU referendum than they did for the last general election. So the 'small numbers' argument is a fiasco. Also no, I'm not counting on millennials to do anything.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I hope for a republic one day. One day

Yeah, lets get rid of all these parasites, let's get rid of all the feudal nonsense! We can't chop off their heads but we could send them to live on a slum council estate just living on benefits.

 

[Rival]

Yeah, lets get rid of all these parasites, let's get rid of all the feudal nonsense! We can't chop off their heads but we could send them to live on a slum council estate just living on benefits.

They already live on benefits. Really big benefits.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The majority of Brits chose to leave, who are we to tell them they're wrong? Attacking the OP like a bunch of bullies means jack squat if you're not a Brit.

But that's just it. The majority didn't choose to leave, but only about half of them did, and of those that did it was mostly those who aren't going to be long living with the consequences of their vote.

 

[MD]

But that's just it. The majority didn't choose to leave, but only about half of them did, and of those that did it was mostly those who aren't going to be long living with the consequences of their vote.

The majority won. It might be a slight margin, but it was still a majority. A lot of people in the 25-34 age group voted leave, almost 40%. 48% of those in the 35-45 age group voted to leave.

There is obviously more going on here than old nationalists vs young globalists. The very young didn't vote but that's their own fault. Societies aren't guided by only the young but the will of the collective.

 

[Rival]

Many young people didn't vote. Only about 35% did.The majority of young people backed Remain, but they didn't vote. So to hell with them; they clearly weren't that bothered about it.

 

[MD]

I'd rather debate a neo-nazi who can say publicly they are a racist, than someone who trolls racist comments and then cowardly calls it "free speech". The weakness and deception are the problem because it shows how irrational the basis of those views are and that they are not capable or willing to discuss them. if someone were to try to defend far right views on the basis of being informed and making clear why they hold such views, so long as it is a minority and do not simply abuse everyone else, that is reasonable (if discomforting). It's better when you have people who make clear where they stand, grasp that others do not necessarily have to agree with them and as a community we can learn to live with that.

The far right is becoming a powerful force in the world. It would be far better for everyone if we knew why rather than engage in two faced debates over how wrong it is that fascists and racists are being denied free speech by political correctness when they would deny it to others. If someone is racist and doesn't have the courage to say so, that tells you a lot about how poorly they value their own opinion and themselves. Political correctness has failed as a mechanism for dealing with it. Now We need to discuss racism directly, stop pretending it isn't there rather than give comfort to the irrationality of those who want to be racist and not accept responsibility for the problems it causes. I sincerely doubt that many of the conservatives and nationalists on RF are really of the calibre to actually pose a physical threat to other people beyond having deeply offensive views. The problem is whether they may well enable people who would and we have to make them face up to that possibility.

I have edited this post several times trying to find a decent answer but really I think having a few members like that on RF is the best defence against it affecting more people on the forums. When we understand what the TVse things really mean in practice we may give people the pause for thought on both sides of the debate they really need.

Why is it concerning that the far right exists, while you admire a man who killed tens of millions?

Why is it something we should discuss, while it's okay to believe in an ideology that killed 100 million people in less than a century?

Some of the biggest religions in the world today have a history of religiously inspired genocides. Why not discuss them?

Why condemn one brutal ideology but support and protect others? Seems like the most moral thing to do is condemn them all or condemn none. Anything else makes us look like hypocrites.

 

[MD]

What happened in the UK convinces me even more that some state-related decisions and laws should just not be put up for popular vote and should instead be handled only by a body of experts and intellectuals, like Supreme Court justices.

And yes, I'm completely serious.

Lol Iran has a supreme council of Ayatollahs who do something similar for religious and social laws, ROFL.

I actually support your idea with how states should be run, but that's cuz I believe a limited democracy guided by experts and intellectuals would be superior to the current system.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Lol Iran has a supreme council of Ayatollahs who do something similar for religious and social laws, ROFL.

Man, I said, "A body of experts and intellectuals," not "a body of psychopaths and cults of personality."

At least grok what I'm saying, dude!

I actually support your idea with how states should be run, but that's cuz I believe a limited democracy guided by experts and intellectuals would be superior to the current system.

Yeah, pure democracy gives way too much leeway for tyranny of the majority, in my opinion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The majority won. It might be a slight margin, but it was still a majority. A lot of people in the 25-34 age group voted leave, almost 40%. 48% of those in the 35-45 age group voted to leave.

That's hardly a majority. That is a slim margin.