UK EU Referendum Aftermath

[sufi]

i saw a nice viral tweet about this mismatch,

• the right plays to win, & doesnt give a shit about anything else

the culture is about competing, rather than ideology, which is only a means to an end, so they won't see giving up as an option, they "double down"
that was in the context of vested interests like dug in Trumpists, who have committed themselves deeply despite the obvious monstrousness of their position, but obviously it's a truth that applies much more widely

whereas the left's motivation is fuzzied by all sorts of nice stuff like good faith and human rights & doing the right thing, and filtered by a belief system, rather than just focussing on the game

 

[IdleRich]

Exactly. It's difficult to see how they can win really... except demographics (in the US I'm thinking of now) are in their favour, which is why the GOP is so reliant on things such as voter suppression, electoral college, the weird way tiny states get equal power in the senate etc to stay in power.

 

[Corpsey]

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html

"Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability. The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet.

This is where Haidt diverges from other psychologists who have analyzed the left’s electoral failures. The usual argument of these psycho-*pundits is that conservative politicians manipulate voters’ neural roots — playing on our craving for authority, for example — to trick people into voting against their interests. But Haidt treats electoral success as a kind of evolutionary fitness test. He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there’s something in Republican messages worth liking. He chides psychologists who try to “explain away” conservatism, treating it as a pathology. Conservatism thrives because it fits how people think, and that’s what validates it. Workers who vote Republican aren’t fools. In Haidt’s words, they’re “voting for their moral interests.”

One of these interests is moral capital — norms, prac*tices and institutions, like religion and family values, that facilitate cooperation by constraining individualism. Toward this end, Haidt applauds the left for regulating corporate greed. But he worries that in other ways, liberals dissolve moral capital too recklessly. Welfare programs that substitute public aid for spousal and parental support undermine the ecology of the family. Education policies that let students sue teachers erode classroom authority. Multicultural education weakens the cultural glue of assimilation. Haidt agrees that old ways must sometimes be re-examined and changed. He just wants liberals to proceed with caution and protect the social pillars sustained by tradition."

 

[IdleRich]

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html

"Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability. The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet.

This is where Haidt diverges from other psychologists who have analyzed the left’s electoral failures. The usual argument of these psycho-*pundits is that conservative politicians manipulate voters’ neural roots — playing on our craving for authority, for example — to trick people into voting against their interests. But Haidt treats electoral success as a kind of evolutionary fitness test. He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there’s something in Republican messages worth liking. He chides psychologists who try to “explain away” conservatism, treating it as a pathology. Conservatism thrives because it fits how people think, and that’s what validates it. Workers who vote Republican aren’t fools. In Haidt’s words, they’re “voting for their moral interests.”

One of these interests is moral capital — norms, prac*tices and institutions, like religion and family values, that facilitate cooperation by constraining individualism. Toward this end, Haidt applauds the left for regulating corporate greed. But he worries that in other ways, liberals dissolve moral capital too recklessly. Welfare programs that substitute public aid for spousal and parental support undermine the ecology of the family. Education policies that let students sue teachers erode classroom authority. Multicultural education weakens the cultural glue of assimilation. Haidt agrees that old ways must sometimes be re-examined and changed. He just wants liberals to proceed with caution and protect the social pillars sustained by tradition."

But the thing is, the Left's message is winning more votes, it's just not winning cos of biased rules. And they can't change the rules to be fair cos the supreme court and the senate etc are all controlled by the Right and these organisations all kinda sustain each other. To win the Dems have to not just be more popular but WAY more popular.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations...

I think it's instructive (or perhaps just bleakly hilarious) to assess how well the current Republican POTUS embodies each of these virtues.

 

[comelately]

I think RationlWiki takes Haidt down quite effectively:

From a variety of polls and studies, Haidt concludes that liberals mostly value care vs. harm and fairness vs. cheating, while conservatives value all six scales. From there, he suddenly jumps from descriptive to normative ethics, declaring that liberal morality is incomplete and all six scales are important. For someone who repeatedly cites David Hume, he's surprisingly willing to abuse the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[version]

The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations.

They don't really care about them though, do they? They let their representatives get away with flouting all six on a regular basis.

 

[Leo]

there's a lot of hypocrisy in there, though. the main reason many tea partiers in the American farmlands still have their heads (barely) above water is due to federal farm subsidies. When other people get subsidies, the tea party calls them handouts/bailouts. when they get subsidies, it's fine.

 

[version]

Shed made a jungle tune with a bunch of Bercow samples in it.

:crylarf:

 

[IdleRich]

Shed made a jungle tune with a bunch of Bercow samples in it.

:crylarf:

Inevitable

 

[baboon2004]

and pretty wonderful. spiritual cousin to that garage tune with jerry springer

 

[IdleRich]

Listening now it's not bad actually.

 

[IdleRich]

Gets a bit annoying by the end mind.

 

[baboon2004]

i don't understand what's happening. johnson has a poorer deal than may and yet MPs are likely to be more lenient? or is this just more bullshit

 

[Mr. Tea]

Headline of the Torygraph is some guff about how "a deal may now be in reach" and a solution to the "backstop" is just around the corner. Lol, yeah OK.

 

[baboon2004]

Not just in the torygraph tho.

 

[IdleRich]

Yeah Guardian is saying that a) UK is close to a deal with EU and b) Tories think they have enough numbers to get the deal through parliament. Both of those things seem like they ought to be impossible but a) just maybe not if Johnson is gonna bend over for 'em and then spin (that is, lie) that it's a victory - but I don't get b) at all. How the fuck can a worse version of the deal that was on the receiving end of the biggest parliamentary defeat ever get through the house? Probably JRM (for it was he) is just lying. Hope so anyway. Cos I feel that the tide is turning more and more against Brexit and will continue to do with time. That is why they are so desperate to Leave by this arbitrary deadline, they fear that each and every extension makes Brexit less likely.

 

[version]

I've dipped out of following it closely for a while now, but I was under the impression the ERG would vote down any deal and had publicly said so.

 

[IdleRich]

Nah, they've been making conciliatory noises all week. But even if they vote for it and the DUP they still need help from Labour or independents I think.

 

[baboon2004]

the terror is that the underlying plot is working, and that by threatening crazy shit they've made 'soft' Brexit look palatable to more people.

And that if it happens there will be a lot of far right psychos whingeing about how everything's been betrayed, and to whom Johnson will dogwhistle all day long