I like how he touches concisely on what brought this all about, what caused it to go as it did, and assorted effects it will have.
I mean, as opposed to when we get links to articles from the atlantic or the new yorker where we fairly consistently have to wade through endless verbiage to get anything.
Idiots
Goose stepping, hate filled morons
Racist
Demented
Odious crypto-fascist
These are just some the words used to describe people the author disagrees with. In addition, I find that the implication of the author that the people over 60 voted for Brexit due to dementia very offensive. Silicon Valley and the tech sector in general already have a poor track record on ageism and this type of stereotyping would not be tolerated for any other disenfranchised group.
> Silicon Valley and the tech sector in general already have a poor track record on ageism and this type of stereotyping would not be tolerated for any other disenfranchised group
The author (Charlie Stross[1]) is not in the valley, and his tenuous link with the tech sector is as a Sci Fi author and ex-programmer (90's web payments). He is also Scottish in Scotland; I'll take his word about the UK/Brexit over yours.
When this is your attitude toward your fellow countrymen and women of course it’s broken. A majority voted for something and they are “idiots”. Democracy is ugly, especially when the majority votes against what you think is best.
Dismissing the rise of populism as “idiots” is about as smug and idiotic as it gets. Populism isn’t rising because people don’t know what’s good for them, but because people don’t think the current structure of the system is good for them. If you’re doing well in the current system, of course it seems stupid to vote against it. If you aren’t doing well, then any brick to throw at the glass house looks good.
Populism and extreme nationalism is best kept at bay by a system that works for the majority of people, creating a strong “middle class”. That way fewer brick throwers exist. But lecturing people about “what’s best” for them or trotting out abstract economic figures and theories won’t do it, only forward economic progress will, where people believe the system works and they can move forward and not slide backwards. Most governments have tried to paste over issues with rhetoric, theories, and easy, central-bank money, all of which are only exacerbating the problems, not fixing them.
Charlie must have some like-minded friends on HN, judging by your downvotes.
I wonder if they even bothered to read your entire post and think about its content, or if they simply read the beginning, considered you an "idiot", and downvoted.
16 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 47.7 ms ] threadBecause that's how you promote understanding: by calling people with opposing views "idiots". And it goes downhill from there.
What hysterical tripe.
Not everyone who voted for Brexit is an idiot. Full stop. Any argument built upon the opposite assumption is flawed, emotional garbage.
I mean, as opposed to when we get links to articles from the atlantic or the new yorker where we fairly consistently have to wade through endless verbiage to get anything.
These are just some the words used to describe people the author disagrees with. In addition, I find that the implication of the author that the people over 60 voted for Brexit due to dementia very offensive. Silicon Valley and the tech sector in general already have a poor track record on ageism and this type of stereotyping would not be tolerated for any other disenfranchised group.
But that's about Farage, and it's pretty accurate reflection of what people think about him.
The author (Charlie Stross[1]) is not in the valley, and his tenuous link with the tech sector is as a Sci Fi author and ex-programmer (90's web payments). He is also Scottish in Scotland; I'll take his word about the UK/Brexit over yours.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cstross
When this is your attitude toward your fellow countrymen and women of course it’s broken. A majority voted for something and they are “idiots”. Democracy is ugly, especially when the majority votes against what you think is best.
Dismissing the rise of populism as “idiots” is about as smug and idiotic as it gets. Populism isn’t rising because people don’t know what’s good for them, but because people don’t think the current structure of the system is good for them. If you’re doing well in the current system, of course it seems stupid to vote against it. If you aren’t doing well, then any brick to throw at the glass house looks good.
Populism and extreme nationalism is best kept at bay by a system that works for the majority of people, creating a strong “middle class”. That way fewer brick throwers exist. But lecturing people about “what’s best” for them or trotting out abstract economic figures and theories won’t do it, only forward economic progress will, where people believe the system works and they can move forward and not slide backwards. Most governments have tried to paste over issues with rhetoric, theories, and easy, central-bank money, all of which are only exacerbating the problems, not fixing them.
I wonder if they even bothered to read your entire post and think about its content, or if they simply read the beginning, considered you an "idiot", and downvoted.