Hacker News Reader

Comment by zimpenfish | Hacker News Reader

> you wake up one day to Brexit and Trump being elected > Forcing content/ideas underground doesnt stop it spreading

In what way were Brexit or Trump "forced underground"? Trump got millions of dollars worth of free advertising from the second he announced he was running because the media could not stop covering him. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox aired 30 minutes of an empty podium for him!

And Brexit was constantly in the media in the UK. There was no "underground" at all. The BBC were almost a full-on propaganda arm with their fawning over Farage and terror that any even slight non-worship of the Tories would be reflected in yet more license fee beatings by ukgov.

View on HN

Well thats my point, they werent forced underground. It was clear for anyone who looked to see what was going to happen. My point is there was an oportunity to engage and faciliate real conversations around these things. That oportunity was squandered with these two instances, because despite them not being outright supressed it was not socially acceptable to have a reasonable conversation around them without being labeled racist etc etc.

If you force them underground you have no idea how prevalent the ideas are, nor do you have any oportunity to genuinely change peoples minds. You cant address a problem you are not aware of.

> Well thats my point, they werent forced underground.

My mistake, I misfollowed your logic.

> it was not socially acceptable to have a reasonable conversation around them without being labeled racist

Well, that's because Trump is an outspoken racist, the GOP is also pretty racist (but better at keeping it quiet), and Brexit was largely predicated on racism.

Sure, you may think all these people are racist. Does calling them racist change anyone's mind? No, it just makes them and their supporters mad at you and just poisons the well.

Instead, debate the policies. Explain why they're wrong in a reasonable conversation. You'll actually have a shot at changing people's minds this way.

> Explain why they're wrong in a reasonable conversation. You'll actually have a shot at changing people's minds this way.

This seems to be expecting the opponent/interlocutor to be open to having their mind changed, while not being open yourself.

Also, when it comes to values (as opposed to questions of fact), you can't really argue the point, you can just understand the differences between the positions. If someone values sovereignty so highly that it outweighs any possible cost of Brexit, for instance, then they're not likely to change their mind after a discussion.

Do you really believe there are 15,188,406 racists in the UK and 62,984,828 racists in the USA?

If you truly believe that then I feel sorry for you, because you live in a really sad world. Is that really the experience you have living in or visiting these countries or travelling around them, that 1 in 2 people you meet are racist?

I think its a bit lazy and easy to substitue fringe views from within these two camps as the views of the majority.

If you agree that they are not the views of the majority of peoplpe who voted in these directions then clearly there are other areas that made them vote this way that could have been discussed and had there minds changed over but werent, because well racist. Everyone loves to complain that trump supporters and brexiters suffer from a lack of critical thinking, and especially conspiracy theorists, but come on. How lazy is it to say all these people are/were racists or that is why brexit/trump won.

> Everyone loves to complain that trump supporters and brexiters suffer from a lack of critical thinking

Which is easily demonstrated by their support for platforms and policies that crumble under the merest hint of application of critical thinking.

Sadly, this is quite evidence backed. Somewhere around 1/3rd of the UK population have racist attitudes based on multiple surveys across multiple decades. In the 60s and 70s there was close to 75% support for ending immigration into the UK for non-whites.

So yes, it's absolutely believable to have 15M racist wankers in the UK.

I'd say most people want their country to "win" against others, they want to be richer than other people and want their country to be the richest sat the expense of other nations.

That's racism/xenophobia, isn't it?

Brexit seems to be predicated on the idea that Brits would rather suffer than risk the possibility that mutual benefit would be weighted towards others in the EU. That's pretty extreme racism (albeit founded on greed) IMO, and is endemic in British society AFAICT.

How many racists would you guess are in the USA? I ask because it seems like you're using a very binary definition of the word.

> How many racists would you guess are in the USA?

Obviously that depends on how you define "racist". If you define it as "votes for an explicit racist from a racist party espousing distinctly racist policies", about 62M.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com