Nitpick: "gammon" as a constituency refers to boomers and older Gen X, typically financially comfortable, who are declining in intellectual openness and increasing in strength of opinion. They are called "gammon" because their faces go bright pink as they rail against the EU, immigrants, woke nonsense, and the laziness of today's youth. They can come from any strata of society, but they are made by being insulated from economic reality during their intellectual decline. Their defining characteristic is that they are choleric about topics of which they know nothing, and this makes them easily led by jingoistic tubthumping.
It's awfully condescending to insinuate that these people are in mental decline just for having the opinions you don't like. You don't have the answers to these problems you speak of, any more than the older and wiser plebs. You might like woke nonsense, infinite immigrants, loss of national sovereignty, etc. but frankly you ought to know better or at least be open to the idea that you don't know it all.
Tosh. The axis is not leave/remain or pro/anti-immigration, it's having an interest in nuance versus settling for simplistic answers. You think you can define me, because I scorn gammon - you must think you're still on Facebook.
>You think you can define me, because I scorn gammon - you must think you're still on Facebook.
I don't use Facebook, lol. You just defined yourself by checking off all the usual liberal talking points and practically claiming that conservatives are old and brain-addled simpletons. There was no nuance afforded to conservative views anywhere in it.
>The axis is not leave/remain or pro/anti-immigration, it's having an interest in nuance versus settling for simplistic answers.
There are simple wrong answers and nuanced wrong answers, and the left employs both kinds of narrative to achieve their ends. I do have nuanced views but I refuse to take part in further fence-sitting and waffling when it comes to issues that affect me.
It's unclear which meaning of "betrays" you intend. If you think it's counterproductive to be so direct and emphatic, let me rephrase it: I am against all but a small amount of immigration of very high-quality people, whereas liberals are in favor of practically unlimited immigration. If you think I "betrayed" my intent by expressing this clearly, it was no secret or mystery to begin with.
Your misrepresentation of opposing views betrays a lack of intellectual openness. For example:
> liberals are in favor of practically unlimited immigration
Do you think "liberals" (are you from the UK btw?) are in favour of 5 billion people immigrating to the UK? Of course not. They just disagree that the current levels of immigration are as big a problem as right-wing media makes out.
