-
Whereas, actually based on the patchy info we have they probably voted more or less in line with everyone else.
As they are now getting fucked over by Brexit (entirely predictable) I think it's fair to say they had a huge incentive to vote differently to everyone else and that they didn't is a failure on their part.
- a majority of UX designers don't wear deodorant
- 53% of UX designers voted to put people who smell bad in prison
- 51% of everyone else voted to put people who smell bad in prison
- UX designers complain that they're being prosecuted for smelling bad
I do agree that the thing with farmers is a bit overblown - people talk as if farmers were 90% for Leave. That's not accurate, but still, they would've voted like 20% Leave if they had any sense.
- a majority of UX designers don't wear deodorant
frankenbike-
This is good. I was trying to say that saying “most farmers voted for brexit, but actually they don’t deserve to be punished for it, because if you compare them to the brexity groups they belong to (white old rural men) they’re slightly less brexity” is a poor argument. Which seemed to me to be one of the points the article was making.
But of course farmers aren’t homogenous, and nearly half voted to stay, and it’s not great to generalise / blame.
Also I don’t think it’s relevant that they couldn’t have swung the vote - if (and I don’t know whether this is true) the same farmers who voted Brexit are now wanting special help because Brexit has brexited them [to borrow a phrase from the playground] it would be justifiably annoying.
t.o.
Yeah. I thought that was a good insight.
I guess my point was that people frame farmers as a homogeneous group who deserve to get fucked by Brexit because they all voted for it. Whereas, actually based on the patchy info we have they probably voted more or less in line with everyone else.
I mean, look I reflexively judge farmers as much as the next person. But when you look into it, it seems like it may be unfair and overly judgemental.