Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Maticmaker said:
:confused:
You've got me there.... can't answer because I am uncertain about which possible 'stereotypes'; who I am supposed to be talking with? And am I misguided, or are they?
Click to expand...

Caf 'lefty luvvers'
Click to expand...

You even added the emphasis to the group you’ve put them in. Of course that isn’t how they self-identify, and particularly they wouldn’t agree with the connotations you ascribe to it. So is it possible that you’ve misattributed them to a group based on a small proportion of their comments, sometimes misunderstood, and then added in all of those other connotations that come from the sources that use that kind of language and emphasis, which in turn leads to more misinterpretation and framing of their other views?
 
Maticmaker said:
Its not a matter of ideas of politics, its what works 'the loony left' would never get elected in the UK; the working class was as mislead by people of the far left (many of whom thought they were the reincarnation of Lenin and Co.), just as much as they have been bamboozled by the Tories.

The last UK Government (of any description) to do anything worthwhile/long-lasting for the working class, was the end of the WW2 Government and the post war Labour Government. Specifically the Education Act, and the launch of the NHS. These two initiatives ensured the right to education for millions and ensured health support free at the point of use for the populace at large.

What would the 'loony left' have done, thankfully we never found out, but specifically would probably have ensured the country would go bankrupt, as money fizzed out of the country overnight.
Click to expand...
I don't think everybody needs to lay into you like they're currently doing, but I do wonder about this bit. As another poster also brought up, if the most meaningful political decisions in the UK of the past 100 years are those two huge welfare programs - then why is you fear of the left that they will introduce huge programs that will bankrupt the country? The way you're putting it, it seems to me you would have said the same in, say, the 30s: 'I hope the loony left will never get to power, cause their crazy ideas will bankrupt the country.' Yet here you are, praising those ideas as the only thing worthwhile from post-WW2 politics.

In general, I would argue that this is the standard conservative stance: 'Things are fine the way they are, no need to change things; maybe undo a couple of small bits, but otherwise we should keep things as they are and let people be.' But that overlooks, first, that things got to be the way they are because of daring governments of the past; and second, that a changing society needs changing welfare programs that are better adapted to current realities. (To give a specific example: labour market regulations need an overhaul to deal with the rise of 'self-employed employees' - by which I mean people like package deliverers that are being exploited through very poor labour conditions.)

And if it's not so much about money being spent but money leaving (e.g., because businesses will move to countries with better business conditions): that's race-to-the-bottom talk. As soon as any country lowers business taxes, any company could want to go there; forcing other countries to follow suit, and so on. But lowering taxes means lowering revenue means lowering services - so all at the expense of people in need of support. That's exactly why the G7 is now determined to inverse that trend, by establishing an international minimum bottom level for business taxes. So surely that's not your argument against the left either.

In fact, in general, I would say that a lot of western/northern European and North American societies actually really need the 'loony left' to get in power and do something radical like what Atlee did in the UK. To my mind, they are getting stuck in an increasing disconnect between the upper levels of society, which are doing increasingly well, and the lower levels, which are doing worse financially (in relative terms) and feel ignored by the political discourse. The latter are currently being courted by right-ist populist movements that present solutions in conservative terms (like nationalism and fewer regulations; Brexit!); but I think a real solution would overhaul the welfare system, reverse course on taxes for above-median incomes, and make sure in that way that everyone feels included in society.

And from the way you're putting it, it sounds to me like you could actually get behind that.
 
Last edited:
Maticmaker said:
Then you should know what it was like, the 'loony left' playing politics with the working class vote, but never ever giving them even a close call at a victory, just rhetoric... and more rhetoric... always wondered when the little 'red book' would make an appearance.

Foot got himself elected as leader of the Labour party, without a hope in hell of actually taking power, or helping working people, your'e right it was a massive defeat, dashed the hopes of millions. Corbyn was the same, however he did have one or two flashes of inspiration but the knob-heads around him ruined that!

Its not a matter of ideas of politics, its what works 'the loony left' would never get elected in the UK; the working class was as mislead by people of the far left (many of whom thought they were the reincarnation of Lenin and Co.), just as much as they have been bamboozled by the Tories.



You are the one waffling!

The last UK Government (of any description) to do anything worthwhile/long-lasting for the working class, was the end of the WW2 Government and the post war Labour Government. Specifically the Education Act, and the launch of the NHS. These two initiatives ensured the right to education for millions and ensured health support free at the point of use for the populace at large.

Read the history books my friend.

What would the 'loony left' have done, thankfully we never found out, but specifically would probably have ensured the country would go bankrupt, as money fizzed out of the country overnight.



I am certainly doing that, I wouldn't miss the daily diet of Caf 'lefty luvvers' moaning and groaning, keep it up lads makes my day!
Click to expand...

Very difficult to hold a sensible debate with someone who just keeps repeating the same old thing like an extract from the dreaded DM.
 
RedChip said:
Just got an email from O2 saying roaming charges now apply if I use more than 25gb of data when roaming in the Eurozone.
Click to expand...

That seems fairer than going back to the daily charge. I’m with BT, so I’m assuming they will do the same as EE.
 
Brwned said:
You even added the emphasis to the group you’ve put them in. Of course that isn’t how they self-identify, and particularly they wouldn’t agree with the connotations you ascribe to it. So is it possible that you’ve misattributed them to a group based on a small proportion of their comments, sometimes misunderstood, and then added in all of those other connotations that come from the sources that use that kind of language and emphasis, which in turn leads to more misinterpretation and framing of their other views?
Click to expand...

Yes Ok hands up you got me there, its a age thing (I think)I love labels!
I am sure a lot of contributors on the Caf are not part of the raving loony left..... they just sound like it a times.
I am sorry, "Mea culpa, Mea culp, Mea maxima culp... I apologise to anyone so offended.

Cheimoon said:
I don't think everybody needs to lay into you like they're currently doing, but I do wonder about this bit. As another poster also brought up, if the most meaningful political decisions in the UK of the past 100 years are those two huge welfare programs - then why is you fear of the left that they will introduce huge programs that will bankrupt the country? The way you're putting it, it seems to me you would have said the same in, say, the 30s: 'I hope the loony left will never get to power, cause the crazy ideas will have will bankrupt the country.' Yet here you, are praising those ideas as the only thing worthwhile from post-WW2 politics.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your concern, but it goes with the territory as far as I am concerned, one of the reasons I choose to respond and also contribute to these threads is to see what others have to say. As long as people are reasonable in tone and accept others have valid views, then they can lay into me all they want.

I referred to Education and Health because a Labour led Government introduced such measures, during/after WW2 and in part to fulfill the promises made after WW1, i.e. to "build a land fit for heroes", etc. and when National Pride was still part of the Labour vocabulary. However whatever 'left of centre' views might have been held by those Labour stalwarts, a few ideas which would now be described as right-wing were also considered by that Government.
My argument years ago, (and it still is) was with those Labour politicians and supporters that espoused political dogma and the politically purity of left thinking at the expense of achieving realistic objectives. Its not left of centre ideas I don't like its the bundles of crazy political dogma it gets wrapped up in. Many so called politicians and supporters on the left have used the working class as 'political fodder', ironically something they always blame the Tories for!

I was born and brought up in an area where Labour was guaranteed victory at every election, (still is!) consequently when in power Labour did nothing or next to nothing to improve that area, because the votes were 'in the bag', why bother, spend the political capital where it might win over some marginal seat. Similarly the Tories never had any hope of winning this seat and other similar seats surrounding it so they didn't make any investment either, thoughts of leveling up appealed neither to Labour nor to Tories. Whenever there was any 'goodies' handed out from Central Government (whatever its persuasion) we were always on the back row, and still are. (Some people it seems never learn!)

Yes there are certain ideas I would support, but not when wrapped in 'loony left' dogma. The problem for Labour last time out wasn't the ideas (although there were far too many to have been achieved) it was those with an absolute left of centre dogma attached to them. One or two major aims should be targeted.Before you ask me let me throw my biggest issue into the pot. Land Usage and House Building, including a defined percentage of social housing, needs to be sorted, not just for now but for the foreseeable future. This does not mean nationalisation or other such blanket controls, it needs proper initiatives with proper rewards, to encourage development and if necessary the enforced release of land, where ever and when ever its required. In theory this should exist at the moment, but it doesn't too many people can duck and dive, ignore the realities, espouse to much NIMBY freedom, etc.

Get this one thing done properly and any Government (left or right )that achieves success will go down in the annals as a great reforming Government.
Educate, House and provide free Health to all your people, what could be more left wing than that? Would a future Labour Manifesto be prepared to be single-minded and make this the 'big one'?
 
Maticmaker said:
There is a difference between left leaning and 'loony left'.

A 'loony left' Government would never get elected. I am certainly not terrified by to-days 'loony left' they couldn't find their way out of a paper bag... that is if they could agree what should constitute a 'paper bag' in the first place!

Notice you've given up on wanting to know the specifics ;)
Click to expand...

Have you considered that it might be because you're either unwilling or unable to provide them?
 
Maticmaker said:
He saved us from Corbyn and the loony left.

Also he is different to most politicians I have had to endure in my lifetime, his transparency is inescapable, its frightening really; however he is teaching the UK public in particular the younger generation a valuable lesson, never give any PM an unassailable 80 seat majority.

Imagine what another more guarded/competent PM could get away with having such an overwhelming majority.



Cummings is 'sniping from behind cover' and he may reveal all sorts of things; however I doubt by the time he gets to the nub of the matter we will be all that interested and all have long since lost interest. If Cummings has some 'bombshell' to land on Boris he needs to do it now and stop this "aren't I the clever boy, letting Boris twist in the wind on his own petard" performance. Perhaps he's just hanging back for bets?

It is perhaps an unfortunate truth but the Pandemic is saving Boris from normal political reality, the public realizes that not only Boris but the whole Government and Civil Service are completely out of their depth with this matter, but the vaccination success is relieving some pressures. The public want to see its Government succeed so Boris continues get support from most of the populace, simply because he is 'Johnny on the spot'.

This is the difficulty for Starmer, he cannot nor I suspect does he want to, shift Boris, at least not just now! Who in their right mind would want to take over just now? Most of the Tory party, never mind Labour, are happy with an 80 seat majority to leave Boris exactly where he is...for now.
If Cummings is really out to bring down Boris, he needs to be careful, both sides of the house want Boris exactly where he is...at least for the time being.
Click to expand...
The mental gymnastics in this post are hilarious.
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes Ok hands up you got me there, its a age thing (I think)I love labels!
I am sure a lot of contributors on the Caf are not part of the raving loony left..... they just sound like it a times.
I am sorry, "Mea culpa, Mea culp, Mea maxima culp... I apologise to anyone so offended.



Thank you for your concern, but it goes with the territory as far as I am concerned, one of the reasons I choose to respond and also contribute to these threads is to see what others have to say. As long as people are reasonable in tone and accept others have valid views, then they can lay into me all they want.

I referred to Education and Health because a Labour led Government introduced such measures, during/after WW2 and in part to fulfill the promises made after WW1, i.e. to "build a land fit for heroes", etc. and when National Pride was still part of the Labour vocabulary. However whatever 'left of centre' views might have been held by those Labour stalwarts, a few ideas which would now be described as right-wing were also considered by that Government.
My argument years ago, (and it still is) was with those Labour politicians and supporters that espoused political dogma and the politically purity of left thinking at the expense of achieving realistic objectives. Its not left of centre ideas I don't like its the bundles of crazy political dogma it gets wrapped up in. Many so called politicians and supporters on the left have used the working class as 'political fodder', ironically something they always blame the Tories for!

I was born and brought up in an area where Labour was guaranteed victory at every election, (still is!) consequently when in power Labour did nothing or next to nothing to improve that area, because the votes were 'in the bag', why bother, spend the political capital where it might win over some marginal seat. Similarly the Tories never had any hope of winning this seat and other similar seats surrounding it so they didn't make any investment either, thoughts of leveling up appealed neither to Labour nor to Tories. Whenever there was any 'goodies' handed out from Central Government (whatever its persuasion) we were always on the back row, and still are. (Some people it seems never learn!)

Yes there are certain ideas I would support, but not when wrapped in 'loony left' dogma. The problem for Labour last time out wasn't the ideas (although there were far too many to have been achieved) it was those with an absolute left of centre dogma attached to them. One or two major aims should be targeted.Before you ask me let me throw my biggest issue into the pot. Land Usage and House Building, including a defined percentage of social housing, needs to be sorted, not just for now but for the foreseeable future. This does not mean nationalisation or other such blanket controls, it needs proper initiatives with proper rewards, to encourage development and if necessary the enforced release of land, where ever and when ever its required. In theory this should exist at the moment, but it doesn't too many people can duck and dive, ignore the realities, espouse to much NIMBY freedom, etc.

Get this one thing done properly and any Government (left or right )that achieves success will go down in the annals as a great reforming Government.
Educate, House and provide free Health to all your people, what could be more left wing than that? Would a future Labour Manifesto be prepared to be single-minded and make this the 'big one'?
Click to expand...
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. :lol: )
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes Ok hands up you got me there, its a age thing (I think)I love labels!
I am sure a lot of contributors on the Caf are not part of the raving loony left..... they just sound like it a times.
I am sorry, "Mea culpa, Mea culp, Mea maxima culp... I apologise to anyone so offended.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Brwned said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.:)
 
Cheimoon said:
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. :lol: )
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
Maticmaker said:
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.:)
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
JPRouve said:
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.
Click to expand...
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'.
 
Xeno said:
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'.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JPRouve said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
Brwned said:
When you say nuance clouds rather than illuminates, what you’re saying is it reduces the simplicity.
Click to expand...

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.

JPRouve said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Maticmaker said:
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!
Click to expand...

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?
 
Jippy said:
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
Click to expand...
[ “I don’t think those who campaigned five years ago for Brexit drove the analysis, drove the politics of it. I think they are surprised, quite often, to find relations are in the state they’re in,” said Frost. /QUOTE]

They didn't drove them but they were told about the conclusion of such analysis, which was received with anti-experts slogans.
Click to expand...
 
Cheimoon said:
I don't think everybody needs to lay into you like they're currently doing, but I do wonder about this bit. As another poster also brought up, if the most meaningful political decisions in the UK of the past 100 years are those two huge welfare programs - then why is you fear of the left that they will introduce huge programs that will bankrupt the country? The way you're putting it, it seems to me you would have said the same in, say, the 30s: 'I hope the loony left will never get to power, cause the crazy ideas will have will bankrupt the country.' Yet here you, are praising those ideas as the only thing worthwhile from post-WW2 politics.
Click to expand...

 
Brwned said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Maticmaker said:
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!
Click to expand...

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!
 
Brwned said:
I haven’t offered an opinion on politicians and their use of nuance
Click to expand...

Quite right, you excluded politicians from the discussion, see below

Brwned said:
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.
Click to expand...

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? :nono:
pot...kettle...black !!!
 
Maticmaker said:
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? :nono:
pot...kettle...black !!!
Click to expand...

Do you have a negative example of nuance used by politicians?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.