Ho ho ho! Merry Election 2019?

[Rebel Pebble]

It's horrendous, shameful and utterly wrong how they are being treated and made to feel by this. Not just the process but the xenophobia unleashed by the referendum and brought right back up by Johnson barely the day before the election.

And this is why I really can't forgive anyone who voted for Leave.

Totally understandable. For me it's more whether someone STILL supports it, as I talked about on the Brexit thread at some point.

And to that end, yes Smal, I believe there is a point and I'm there.

[overthehill]

I'd like to add a quick thank you to Tsu and son, too. For what it's worth, I think his is a perfectly valid viewpoint - and, let's face it, the soft Brexit he talks about was what being touted by the Leave campaign.

I typed out a long and rambling post last night but lost it as we came in to Fishguard and I lost the ship's wifi. The discussion has moved on since.

Honestly, I'm not so much surprised by the Tory win, but shocked at the scale of the landslide. No need for a People's Vote now. Bloody Boris will get his Brexit done. Hoorah for Boris! I'm also sad to realise that I live in a bubble surrounded, both here and IRL, by decent, socially-aware, thoughtful people, but that - in terms of the general electorate - we're a minority voice. The election was won not by social media, but by a pernicious and highly successful campaign of misinformation in the mainstream press. It was all about Brexit and Corbyn. The vast majority either didn't believe or didn't care what else was in the Party manifestos.

Tsu's son is right about something else too. While Boris' deal will pass through Parliament, if the transition period isn't extended, it'll be as good as no deal anyway.

Living in Ireland , R's and my concerns about Brexit are mainly around the value of the pound (strong pound good for R's pension and exports, weak pound good for my imports), free movement, import tariffs, and the Border. But that's not to say we are blind to the double impact of a potential no deal Brexit, coupled with a nightmare right-wing government, on everyone else.

Now the Brexit ship has sailed, we all need to focus on holding our respective governments to account for all their lies and broken promises.

[Marth]

There is defintely a line in the sand. I think sometimes for me it takes a while to realise where it is.

Take abortion rights for example. I now realise that I do not have to listen to one single person's reason as to why they feel they have the right to try and limit a woman's autonomy to her own body. I am not interested in listening to their arguments. That is my line in the sand.

[smalex]

Tsu's son is right about something else too. While Boris' deal will pass through Parliament, if the transition period isn't extended, it'll be as good as no deal anyway.

Specially now he's going to enshrine the leaving date in law. He's belt and braces, for sure.

[Rebel Pebble]

Tsu's son is right about something else too. While Boris' deal will pass through Parliament, if the transition period isn't extended, it'll be as good as no deal anyway.

That was in my list B. GIven that Johnson is going to amend the Withdrawal Bill to make extending the transition period illegal, you can pretty much take it as read

And holding this Government to account, that was in my List A. Johnson will be onto that too, with his moves against broadcasters and the Courts. Welcome to life in a far right state.

Marth, exactly. There is no abortion "debate".

[sally maclennane]

I honestly don't think I know any Leave voters, or none that have admitted it anyway. And Tories are obviously a rare breed in Scotland! So I guess I'm lucky in that I live in a bit of a bubble but otherwise I agree with Marth, I'm past the stage of listening to people whose views are so alien to mine.

[Lily]

Take abortion rights for example. I now realise that I do not have to listen to one single person's reason as to why they feel they have the right to try and limit a woman's autonomy to her own body. I am not interested in listening to their arguments. That is my line in the sand.

When you put it like that, it makes it a lot easier to fathom. That would be mine: also, racism, and homophobia. I'm not there with politics, but the clarity of this statement has crystallised this for me.

It's quite a strong feeling when you think, "I don't have to listen to/argue with this." And a freeing one, too.

[smalex]

Take abortion rights for example. I now realise that I do not have to listen to one single person's reason as to why they feel they have the right to try and limit a woman's autonomy to her own body. I am not interested in listening to their arguments. That is my line in the sand.

When you put it like that, it makes it a lot easier to fathom. That would be mine: also, racism, and homophobia. I'm not there with politics, but the clarity of this statement has crystallised this for me.

It's quite a strong feeling when you think, "I don't have to listen to/argue with this." And a freeing one, too.

Doesn't politics overlap with things that are your red line, though? Anyone who just voted Conservative just gave a huge mandate to a leader who has actively and clearly displayed racist and homophobic opinions, and has actively stoked up anti-immigrant sentiment and pursued policies sought to make immigrants feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. SO while they might not express those views themselves, they've said it's fine by them if the leader of their country does.

[Morganna]

Sorry to come over all Kumbaya, but I think that’s a dangerous road to go down. It’s one thing to have a line in the sand about accepting racism (or whatever), but to decide in advance that you (one) just won’t discuss something is only going to polarise things further. Unless you listen, how do you know a viewpoint is racist, as opposed to badly expressed or ill-informed or something else?

You also remove the chance to persuade people that there is another point of view, and encourage an environment where people can be offensive with impunity, like in the 70s.

[Lily]

Doesn't politics overlap with things that are your red line, though? Anyone who just voted Conservative just gave a huge mandate to a leader who has actively and clearly displayed racist and homophobic opinions, and has actively stoked up anti-immigrant sentiment and pursued policies sought to make immigrants feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. SO while they might not express those views themselves, they've said it's fine by them if the leader of their country does.

I think politics is more complicated. Otherwise anyone who voted Labour has given a tacit nod to anti-semitism, as mentioned earlier in the thread, which isn't true (IMO). There are only very few parties for whom you can vote so your choices are limited.

I also agree with Morgs on this one re politics.

I don't think I would simply not bother engaging with someone who held those views; I would give them a chance to show whether it was ignorance or whatever first, and see if it/they were worth my while. But nobody really wants their opinions changed!

[smalex]

I mean these are the things you said are your red lines, they might not be everyone's. I'm making the point that it doesn't really make sense to me if you say that people displaying racist or homophobic views are beyond the pale for you (obviously fair enough), but if they vote in a way that endorses racist and homophobic views, it's different.

[Lily]

That would then mean that anyone who voted for Labour or Conservative would be dead to me.

[sally maclennane]

Nobody is dead to me, I just find that people are generally intransigent and dont want to be swayed, and I get frustrated trying to get them to see my view, and nothing changes so really, what's the point?

[Lily]

I absolutely do know there are more Leave voters like that, Montana. I’m unsure where I’ve suggested there aren’t. I was just trying to be grateful to Tsu for taking the time to bug her son to give us some articulate reasons.

Lily, you’re clearly in one of those moods so I’ve no wish to argue with you but your depiction of painfully polite as a bad thing is yours alone - not mine. I never even intimated it was a bad thing, quite the opposite. If you’d read anything I’ve said then I think you’d see that. I was acknowledging the effort that many of us were making to be courteous. FFS.

Yes, Smal - I tried to make that point last time that there will be always eventually be a line in the sand where we no longer need to try and understand - like if someone was being a racist etc etc. But then I just got accused of calling Tsu a racist so I gave up trying to articulate myself. Maybe I need to use more emojis.

It has taken me a good hour but I have finally figured out what you mean, apologies! As you struggled to articulate yourself as much as I did - and I don't think we were the only ones! - I don't think anything said was particularly out of order, though. This is the peril of online debate and why I'm trying to do less of it (and failing).

[Loralei]

Sorry to come over all Kumbaya, but I think that’s a dangerous road to go down. It’s one thing to have a line in the sand about accepting racism (or whatever), but to decide in advance that you (one) just won’t discuss something is only going to polarise things further. Unless you listen, how do you know a viewpoint is racist, as opposed to badly expressed or ill-informed or something else?

You also remove the chance to persuade people that there is another point of view, and encourage an environment where people can be offensive with impunity, like in the 70s.

Have you read Why I'm No Longer Talking to White People About Race, Morgs? It's not a book you can distill into a sentence, and is about so much more than the titular question, but the basic answer is that the author believes she's spent a significant part of her life being reasonable and taking time to explain to and educate people who, at best, want to adopt her words for the purposes of virtue signalling and, at worst, downright disbelieve her lived experience. (She does acknowledge there are white people who are genuinely open to learn and work against racism but her point is that the vast majority benefit from institutional racism in such fundamental ways that even the most anti-racist person will be reluctant to have them pointed out, never mind challenge them. It made for uncomfortable reading.) Likewise, I'm not interested in talking to people who still strongly support Leave as, if the emergence of facts over the last three years hasn't changed their minds, then I'm not going to. And yes, any discourse would be with a view to changing their minds as the alternative is to believe that humans are an acceptable sacrifice for the dream, and I don't accept that any ideological or economic dream is worth that.

And I completely disagree with your second paragraph. In fact I strongly believe that (as has already been said) the reason we are already in some parallel universe where repugnant views are voiced freely and with impunity is because of attempts to see both sides, even when one of them us morally reprehensible. The behaviour of the last government, and especially the Leave campaign, have legitimized xenophobia and racism. Saying that immigrants are a drain on resources, that they take more from our systems than they contribute isn't a valid counterclaim; it's plain inaccurate. So while, in theory, it's important to discuss with someone why they feel people less fortunate are to blame for their misfortunes, it's only worthwhile as an exercise in changing their minds which, as I've said, is futile.

[Rebel Pebble]

Could not agree more with all of that, Lora.

On another note, I stopped my DD to the LDs yesterday and emailed them to cancel my membership. They replied today going "please don't go, we know it was bad , we'll rebuild and there's work to do"

I've answered explaining that even if they'd done well, their Self ID policy meant I was always going to do this and until it changes I won't return. I specifically quoted the use of TERF by the Young LD's Twitter account and Swinson's bizarre use of lesbians as justification for the policy.

[Morganna]

And I completely disagree with your second paragraph. In fact I strongly believe that (as has already been said) the reason we are already in some parallel universe where repugnant views are voiced freely and with impunity is because of attempts to see both sides, even when one of them us morally reprehensible. The behaviour of the last government, and especially the Leave campaign, have legitimized xenophobia and racism. Saying that immigrants are a drain on resources, that they take more from our systems than they contribute isn't a valid counterclaim; it's plain inaccurate. So while, in theory, it's important to discuss with someone why they feel people less fortunate are to blame for their misfortunes, it's only worthwhile as an exercise in changing their minds which, as I've said, is futile.

I haven't read the book you mention, but I will look out for it when I finish my course. I've heard of it, and seen bits of it quoted, though. The thing is, I would rather know if something I said, did or thought was offensive. Like most, and as Lily pointed out upthread, much depends on how these things are approached, and being patronised or hectored just won't work, but I would rather someone pointed out nicely that something is factually wrong, or that an attitude is based on prejudice than have them roll their eyes and think it's not worth the candle. How else can any of us learn? Times change, attitudes shift and however well-meaning, we can all get it wrong without meaning to, and it's easy enough to at least think about something that might not have occurred until someone pointed it out. I'm not ready to be written off as not worth the bother, and I find it really worrying that people do seem to be doing this to one another a lot. We are putting one another into metaphorical boxes, and only opening the ones we want to, which makes us all much easier to pick off (and more vulnerable to being picked off) by a malicious government.

[smalex]

I don't think anyone need be 'dead' to you Lily. But I do think it's difficult to have an unimpeachable red line, but forgive people if their politics is in stark contrast to that red line. It was just interesting to me that the two examples you cited (racism and homophobia) were two of the things where a very simple line could be drawn to our recent politics and where, more than ever, a vote for Johnson and his Tories could clearly be seen as accepting clear views and policies that are racist and homophobic.

I do think a considerable amount of people who voted labour, including me (and lots of us here I suspect) found the labour antisemitics really really difficult. I've had to accept that I'm prepared to put racism in second place, in some circumstances, I think it's 'justified' for a number of reasons. But yes, it turns out I'm willing to tolerate some racism more than I thought I was.

[Loralei]

The thing is, I would rather know if something I said, did or thought was offensive. Like most, and as Lily pointed out upthread, much depends on how these things are approached, and being patronised or hectored just won't work, but I would rather someone pointed out nicely that something is factually wrong, or that an attitude is based on prejudice than have them roll their eyes and think it's not worth the candle. How else can any of us learn?

There is a huge difference between calling someone out on their behaviour and sitting down to discuss why they may feel that way in the first place. As you point out, for some people it's not a reasoned and thought out viewpoint but just how it's always been, what they've always said, what they've been told. I don't believe for a minute that the racist scumbags who now feel able to tell their Asian neighbour that they're not welcome now "we've won" felt any differently four years ago; the difference is that they knew they couldn't get away with saying it and, for those who will never change, that will have to do. I have never suggested we shouldn't call out such behaviour but I used to tell my Gran, "That's not ok. You can't speak like that about people," and I will do the same to anyone I hear spouting hatred. How nice I am about it depends on the context.

If people genuinely want to learn they will be open to discussion and ask questions (as plenty of us did with Tsu) and that's fine for me; even if I don't change their views maybe we'll both have something to think about. But those aren't the people we're talking about. And, frankly, if you want to learn, go and learn! There is plenty of information out there without demanding others be your teachers. While everyone here is clearly happy to discuss things, none of us have set ourselves up as educators or accepted responsibility for providing full, accurate and balanced evidence for what you should think. Maybe the world would be a poorer place if everyone said "Enough," but it's a perfectly reasonable stance for those who have been fighting futilely for the past three and a half years for what we passionately believe to be the best for all people.

Also, you say being hectored and patronised doesn't work but actually I would argue that anyone here who has made major changes in their beliefs has done so as a result of a combination of tough love and understanding; that one won't work without the other and the comments of, "That's ridiculous,; you have to stop thinking that way!" have combined with the more gentle approach to affect change.

[Morganna]

Yes, if people don't want to engage, they won't. I don't know. I think part of me still needs something to hope for, and I don't think that writing off people as hopeless will help. Maybe we are well past that now, but I hope not.

As regards changing views - I was referring to the little I know about the book you recommended. If the author has decided that she's not going to let others demand that she teach them, fine. I don't blame her. But then she can't complain that people don't understand her experiences. How can they, unless someone tells them?

Anyway, this has all strayed a long way from the election. Maybe in a perverse sort of way, when Tory policies start to kick in with a vengeance there will be more unity, as people will have to start pulling together more.