pratty

Hong Kong. I am/was big into Hong Kong cinema so I've always had a fascination for the place. In addition to the culture I like how geographically diverse it is for such a small place.

A fair point. I understand where you're coming from, I just think many people were simply voting to get out of the EU, not voting for what to do afterwards. No problem, what I meant is seeing as a flaw of democracy is how so many people can suffer the wishes of the majority, the larger the number of people under a single democracy the more the effect of that flaw is magnified, as more people can (as a minority) suffer under a majority. I think any say is better than no say. I think democracy is a lot more than a system of representation, it's ultimately about the people having an influence, therefore the more direct influence - the more democratic. Lies are a part of politics i'm afraid, politicians also lie during the elections that determine the representatives you say should have decided our EU membership, should we not vote on them either because of lies? Imagine if someone had decided not to count a vote of yours, or deny you your right to vote altogether, because they decided in their proclaimed wisdom that you didn't have discernment to tell the truth from the lies. Would you be content to yield to their judgement? Additionally if a vote can be prevented or disqualified on the basis that there may be lies affecting the vote, then that is open to constant abuse, because then the mere presence of a lie inserted into the public discourse is all that is needed to prevent any undesired vote.

A fair point. I understand where you're coming from, I just think many people were simply voting to get out of the EU, not voting for what to do afterwards. No problem, what I meant is seeing as a flaw of democracy is how so many people can suffer the wishes of the majority, the larger the number of people under a single democracy the more the effect of that flaw is magnified, as more people can (as a minority) suffer under a majority. I think any say is better than no say. I think democracy is a lot more than a system of representation, it's ultimately about the people having an influence, therefore the more direct influence - the more democratic. Lies are a part of politics i'm afraid, politicians also lie during the elections that determine the representatives you say should have decided our EU membership, should we not vote on them either because of lies? Imagine if someone had decided not to count a vote of yours, or deny you your right to vote altogether, because they decided in their proclaimed wisdom that you didn't have discernment to tell the truth from the lies. Would you be content to yield to their judgement? Additionally if a vote can be prevented or disqualified on the basis that there may be lies affecting the vote, then that is open to constant abuse, because then the mere presence of a lie inserted into the public discourse is all that is needed to prevent any undesired vote.

Not in this instance no, because it's not the same. It's the directly expressed will of the people being overruled by the even more flawed indirect and messy representation of the people by an elected supposed intellectual superior. The system of the latter really only exists because of the impracticality of doing the former on every single issue, but when we do have a referendum surely it must take precedence? Too me it seems illogical that the representatives of the people should be able to overrule the people themselves, if they do then how can they claim to represent the views of the people if their verdicts don't match what the people have already expressed? We may have, to be fair I can't say I was following these people's every utterance during the referendum campaign but at no point during the referendum lead up did I ever here Gove or Johnson campaigning to be Prime Minister. But you may be right. I don't care what they want, it's not about them, they only get one vote/say in it like the rest of us. Is it really too much to expect politicians to deal with the democratically determined will of the people? Surely to leave the EU, the specifics of the ins and outs are the government's responsibility to make it happen. An exact specific plan what to do next would be difficult anyway as it would be dependant on the various negotiations, the outcome of which can't be accurately foreseen. I think many leavers realise this, that leaving had a high degree of uncertainty and was still worth the risk. Absolutely it is, we knew this before the vote but I get the feeling reaminers would not bring this up had they won. Leaving the EU means we have one less flawed democracy to contend with, a flawed democracy where an even greater minority of people than those in the UK can suffer the effects of a majority they disagree with. If as many remainers insisted, that the EU is indeed democratic and that this is a good reason to stay ("we have to be in it to have our say on it" etc), then surely to be consistent they must still generally believe in the value of the democratic system despite it's faults. Yes it's subjective, and when comparing it's not easy because you can't always just put a number on people's many reasons for their vote, both leave or stay. To say the consequences for each side are uneven implies that an a straight forward vote (i.e. one-person-one-vote, either for or against, with the majority deciding the result) is an unsatisfactory way to decide what to do. However even if we accepted what you say about the greater imposition on remainers, to set a required greater-than-51% percentage for the leave vote to outweigh the supposed greater imposition to the remainers would be arbitrary considering the aforementioned subjective nature of the argument. And to not have a vote at all would surely be the least democratic solution.

Not in this instance no, because it's not the same. It's the directly expressed will of the people being overruled by the even more flawed indirect and messy representation of the people by an elected supposed intellectual superior. The system of the latter really only exists because of the impracticality of doing the former on every single issue, but when we do have a referendum surely it must take precedence? Too me it seems illogical that the representatives of the people should be able to overrule the people themselves, if they do then how can they claim to represent the views of the people if their verdicts don't match what the people have already expressed? We may have, to be fair I can't say I was following these people's every utterance during the referendum campaign but at no point during the referendum lead up did I ever here Gove or Johnson campaigning to be Prime Minister. But you may be right. I don't care what they want, it's not about them, they only get one vote/say in it like the rest of us. Is it really too much to expect politicians to deal with the democratically determined will of the people? Surely to leave the EU, the specifics of the ins and outs are the government's responsibility to make it happen. An exact specific plan what to do next would be difficult anyway as it would be dependant on the various negotiations, the outcome of which can't be accurately foreseen. I think many leavers realise this, that leaving had a high degree of uncertainty and was still worth the risk. Absolutely it is, we knew this before the vote but I get the feeling reaminers would not bring this up had they won. Leaving the EU means we have one less flawed democracy to contend with, a flawed democracy where an even greater minority of people than those in the UK can suffer the effects of a majority they disagree with. If as many remainers insisted, that the EU is indeed democratic and that this is a good reason to stay ("we have to be in it to have our say on it" etc), then surely to be consistent they must still generally believe in the value of the democratic system despite it's faults. Yes it's subjective, and when comparing it's not easy because you can't always just put a number on people's many reasons for their vote, both leave or stay. To say the consequences for each side are uneven implies that an a straight forward vote (i.e. one-person-one-vote, either for or against, with the majority deciding the result) is an unsatisfactory way to decide what to do. However even if we accepted what you say about the greater imposition on remainers, to set a required greater-than-51% percentage for the leave vote to outweigh the supposed greater imposition to the remainers would be arbitrary considering the aforementioned subjective nature of the argument. And to not have a vote at all would surely be the least democratic solution.

Why would we though? This is what we collectively decided through the previously and almost universally championed democratic system. The remain voters complaining that they have had something forced on them against their will by the majority were perfectly happy to to do the the exact same thing to the leavers. We all knew this is the nature of democracy, we all effectively said we will inflict our wishes on the minority should our cause be the majority, and we condoned this very system with our willing and even enthusiastic participation in it. Cameron said he would honour the vote to leave, he is the one passing the buck if he leaves before leading us out. Those who lead the leave campaign weren't campaigning to be Prime Minister, that's not what they wanted, they just wanted to leave the EU, they're two totally different things, there's a lot more to being Prime Minister than just managing the EU leave and aftermath. But because Cam doesn't fancy the job anymore we should ignore the vote and blame other people for not wanting to be PM? We all knew there was no concrete plan in place before the vote, hence all the talk of uncertainty if we vote to leave, so why would this disqualify the result of the referendum? As soon as the referendum was announced Cameron and his government should have conceived of a potential exit strategy should the vote go that way, but evidently they didn't because they arrogantly assumed the majority of the people wouldn't possibly defy their government's wishes to remain.

Why would we though? This is what we collectively decided through the previously and almost universally championed democratic system. The remain voters complaining that they have had something forced on them against their will by the majority were perfectly happy to to do the the exact same thing to the leavers. We all knew this is the nature of democracy, we all effectively said we will inflict our wishes on the minority should our cause be the majority, and we condoned this very system with our willing and even enthusiastic participation in it. Cameron said he would honour the vote to leave, he is the one passing the buck if he leaves before leading us out. Those who lead the leave campaign weren't campaigning to be Prime Minister, that's not what they wanted, they just wanted to leave the EU, they're two totally different things, there's a lot more to being Prime Minister than just managing the EU leave and aftermath. But because Cam doesn't fancy the job anymore we should ignore the vote and blame other people for not wanting to be PM? We all knew there was no concrete plan in place before the vote, hence all the talk of uncertainty if we vote to leave, so why would this disqualify the result of the referendum? As soon as the referendum was announced Cameron and his government should have conceived of a potential exit strategy should the vote go that way, but evidently they didn't because they arrogantly assumed the majority of the people wouldn't possibly defy their government's wishes to remain.

Mostly working class folk speaking, including the father of an Indian family who voted because of immigration. Immigration was mentioned a lot, nobody said they didn't like foreigners, it was mostly about the the volume of immigration being too much for the country's infrastructure to handle, and cheap labour undercutting Brits and taking jobs. Others said this was the first time they felt their vote really made a political difference, and another was talking about the British identity; he said EU immigrants were coming here for the job/economic opportunities rather than participating in the british culture and community. A business owner with 20 immigrant employees voted to leave because of EU red tape effecting his business. Overall on immigration people weren't anti foreigner, they just wanted to reduce immigration. Some remain voters were also interviewed, they said that opportunities for the young had been taken away and that leaving wouldn't fix the concerns leavers had.

Mostly working class folk speaking, including the father of an Indian family who voted because of immigration. Immigration was mentioned a lot, nobody said they didn't like foreigners, it was mostly about the the volume of immigration being too much for the country's infrastructure to handle, and cheap labour undercutting Brits and taking jobs. Others said this was the first time they felt their vote really made a political difference, and another was talking about the British identity; he said EU immigrants were coming here for the job/economic opportunities rather than participating in the british culture and community. A business owner with 20 immigrant employees voted to leave because of EU red tape effecting his business. Overall on immigration people weren't anti foreigner, they just wanted to reduce immigration. Some remain voters were also interviewed, they said that opportunities for the young had been taken away and that leaving wouldn't fix the concerns leavers had.

Panorama interviews leaves voters in the Midlands.

Panorama interviews leaves voters in the Midlands.

^ I never knew that. I've never liked the word invalid, it's basically in-valid, harsh to imply a person isn't a valid person if they have a disability.

^ I never knew that. I've never liked the word invalid, it's basically in-valid, harsh to imply a person isn't a valid person if they have a disability.

You wont simply take my word for it that it's a thing, I give examples but you reject them as they are too few. How many would suffice given the impracticallity of listing every single one in a forum post? What about the fancy dress parties that get cancelled, what about a themed restaurant having it's cultural iconography banned? Kylie Jenner took a ton of criticism on social media for her cornrows, that wasn't just one person objecting. It would be nice if that's all the anti-cultural appropriation movement was. Even without those that would stop people doing things it isn't just about encouraging people to be more interested in the history of a culture, they also say that not being interested or mindful is a bad thing and by extension makes you a bad a person. For example going back to yoga, it has been said that it's bad to ignore the spiritual side of yoga and just do it for the physical benefits because "doing so relies on racist thinking – legitimatizing what white and Western people like about yoga, and invalidating its original meaning." Really? All I wanted to do was cure my back pain and now I'm a racist? Even if the person who said that observed me doing yoga there is no tangible way for them to determine whether I was incoprating the spiritual side or to gauge my understanding and respect for the culture it came from. Surely then the simpliest thing to do is just leave people to it. If they do respect and learn about that culture then great, if they don't maybe mind your own business instead of making judgements about people you don't know. I never said there was anything wrong with that. I did say I'm PC up to a point. I do think 'positive discrimination' in employment is wrong though. Not personally, but as you say the media has told me, and I have read about instances of other people being told that who I would assume would tell me the same thing. Fair to say the media can't always be trusted though.

You wont simply take my word for it that it's a thing, I give examples but you reject them as they are too few. How many would suffice given the impracticallity of listing every single one in a forum post? What about the fancy dress parties that get cancelled, what about a themed restaurant having it's cultural iconography banned? Kylie Jenner took a ton of criticism on social media for her cornrows, that wasn't just one person objecting. It would be nice if that's all the anti-cultural appropriation movement was. Even without those that would stop people doing things it isn't just about encouraging people to be more interested in the history of a culture, they also say that not being interested or mindful is a bad thing and by extension makes you a bad a person. For example going back to yoga, it has been said that it's bad to ignore the spiritual side of yoga and just do it for the physical benefits because "doing so relies on racist thinking – legitimatizing what white and Western people like about yoga, and invalidating its original meaning." Really? All I wanted to do was cure my back pain and now I'm a racist? Even if the person who said that observed me doing yoga there is no tangible way for them to determine whether I was incoprating the spiritual side or to gauge my understanding and respect for the culture it came from. Surely then the simpliest thing to do is just leave people to it. If they do respect and learn about that culture then great, if they don't maybe mind your own business instead of making judgements about people you don't know. I never said there was anything wrong with that. I did say I'm PC up to a point. I do think 'positive discrimination' in employment is wrong though. Not personally, but as you say the media has told me, and I have read about instances of other people being told that who I would assume would tell me the same thing. Fair to say the media can't always be trusted though.