Is Theresa May really going to spend the next six weeks repeating the terms 'strong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

Judging May in May, as it were.

---

Excellent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

Excellent.

---

Yes, I meant to say, good work there Ash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Hang on, you're not actually denying that people are generally stupid, or, more specific to the topic being discussed, insufficiently engaged with politics to make informed voting decisions, are you? In fact I know many people who are engaged with politics who I believe are ill-equipped to make informed decisions - and I'd count myself among them (which is partly why I don't vote).

Where you are wrong is assuming that believing this (as I do and as I believe you do, if you are being honest) does not necessarily mean we think democracy itself is a bad idea. It could simply mean that we believe democracy is great (albeit flawed) in spite of the fact that most of the people charged with deciding who controls it at any given time are stupid.

Equally, with football fans, yes I absolutely believe they are too stupid for their opinions to have any credibility or worth in terms of their actual substance, but I also recognise that without them football would be nothing and that therefore their freedom to attend matches and, alas, to voice their cretinious opinions, should and must be protected.

---

How do you view yourself in this respect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWv2

How do you view yourself in this respect?

---

I think I can occasionally have some decent insights, but that's more due to the way my brain works rather than any specialist knowledge. When it comes to the latter, I think I'm pretty mediocre, albeit above the mean, I would hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Hang on, you're not actually denying that people are generally stupid, or, more specific to the topic being discussed, insufficiently engaged with politics to make informed voting decisions, are you? In fact I know many people who are engaged with politics who I believe are ill-equipped to make informed decisions - and I'd count myself among them (which is partly why I don't vote).

Where you are wrong is assuming that believing this (as I do and as I believe you do, if you are being honest) does not necessarily mean we think democracy itself is a bad idea. It could simply mean that we believe democracy is great (albeit flawed) in spite of the fact that most of the people charged with deciding who controls it at any given time are stupid.

Equally, with football fans, yes I absolutely believe they are too stupid for their opinions to have any credibility or worth in terms of their actual substance, but I also recognise that without them football would be nothing and that therefore their freedom to attend matches and, alas, to voice their cretinious opinions, should and must be protected.

---

People are not God. They cannot see all ends.

To recognise this is not to consider them stupid, as much as you would like us both to share your misanthropy. A person of low education from Stoke might have an intuitive understanding of how political power should be distributed that, in my opinion, could be superior to the view of a university professor who insists that she, as a highly intelligent and educated expert, knows best and that the best thing is for people like them to decide the law of the land.

On another level, if a Surrey stockbroker always votes Tory purely because he believes it is in his interests, while a west Cumbrian ship-builder always votes Labour purely because she believes it is in her interests, then so be it. Better that they care little for the detail of the policies but have their say, than for them to have no say at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

People are not God. They cannot see all ends.

To recognise this is not to consider them stupid, as much as you would like us both to share your misanthropy. A person of low education from Stoke might have an intuitive understanding of how political power should be distributed that, in my opinion, could be superior to the view of a university professor who insists that she, as a highly intelligent and educated expert, knows best and that the best thing is for people like them to decide the law of the land.

On another level, if a Surrey stockbroker always votes Tory purely because he believes it is in his interests, while a west Cumbrian ship-builder always votes Labour purely because she believes it is in her interests, then so be it. Better that they care little for the detail of the policies but have their say, than for them to have no say at all.

---

I agree that instinct and intuition can be valuable commodities within the marketplace of ideas and that entrenched ideology often pollutes the thinking of educated 'clever' people.

But I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. If you break down my point, it is simply that current levels of intelligence and engagement are sub-optimal, and it would be better if people were smarter and more informed.

I know they are mere snapshots during which people are asked for their opinions off-guard, but you must have noticed that TV vox pops never manage to find anyone with anything remotely original or insightful to say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

I agree that instinct and intuition can be valuable commodities within the marketplace of ideas and that entrenched ideology often pollutes the thinking of educated 'clever' people.

But I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. If you break down my point, it is simply that current levels of intelligence and engagement are sub-optimal, and it would be better if people were smarter and more informed.

I know they are mere snapshots during which people are asked for their opinions off-guard, but you must have noticed that TV vox pops never manage to find anyone with anything remotely original or insightful to say?

---

That's television doe, innit. The Idiot Box, Michael Mann calls it, and he would know better than most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

I agree that instinct and intuition can be valuable commodities within the marketplace of ideas and that entrenched ideology often pollutes the thinking of educated 'clever' people.

But I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. If you break down my point, it is simply that current levels of intelligence and engagement are sub-optimal, and it would be better if people were smarter and more informed.

I know they are mere snapshots during which people are asked for their opinions off-guard, but you must have noticed that TV vox pops never manage to find anyone with anything remotely original or insightful to say?

---

I think the essential thing I am disagreeing with is your misanthropy. Look, there's nothing wrong with you aspiring to a higher level of political engagement, where engagement is defined in terms of an intelligent, balanced, nuanced, informed* analysis. I would like that too but I don't tip back the other way and decry everyone as stupid because the level of engagement is not as high as it might be.

The thing is, I know plenty of people who consider themselves smart and informed, but who I often disagree with when it comes to political outlook, largely because their primary source of information* is The Guardian. :shrug:

* A problem for me is a lack of balance and breadth in the range of views discussed in the most highly-consumed media sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

People are not God. They cannot see all ends.

To recognise this is not to consider them stupid, as much as you would like us both to share your misanthropy. A person of low education from Stoke might have an intuitive understanding of how political power should be distributed that, in my opinion, could be superior to the view of a university professor who insists that she, as a highly intelligent and educated expert, knows best and that the best thing is for people like them to decide the law of the land.

On another level, if a Surrey stockbroker always votes Tory purely because he believes it is in his interests, while a west Cumbrian ship-builder always votes Labour purely because she believes it is in her interests, then so be it. Better that they care little for the detail of the policies but have their say, than for them to have no say at all.

---

The less say, the better, I think. In a civilised country, people ought to have better things to think about than who runs the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

I think the essential thing I am disagreeing with is your misanthropy. Look, there's nothing wrong with you aspiring to a higher level of political engagement, where engagement is defined in terms of an intelligent, balanced, nuanced, informed* analysis. I would like that too but I don't tip back the other way and decry everyone as stupid because the level of engagement is not as high as it might be.

The thing is, I know plenty of people who consider themselves smart and informed, but who I often disagree with when it comes to political outlook, largely because their primary source of information* is The Guardian. :shrug:

* A problem for me is a lack of balance and breadth in the range of views discussed in the most highly-consumed media sources.

---

Although, bemoaning the absence of debate is a good way to avoid showing youself up by actually engaging in one.