I’ll just leave this here

Several millions have changed their mind according to most reliable estimates (but I guess not in your local pub).

Wow you remainers are so far more superior than those morons that voted leave. If only they were all like you.

Most popular UK search terms on Google, the day AFTER the referendum - 'What is the EU?' & 'What is Brexit?'

just reminded me to get an irish passport

And the best example of it is a short video with misleading platitudes as the only content... ain’t impressed by your “legend” at all tbh

I wasn’t trying to impress anyone and why would it have to be the best example, it was just an example a short example but still it backs up my point that it’s not just xenophobia that caused people to vote leave, nothing else . And I didn’t say the video is legendary, I said Jordon Peterson is a legend, I firmly think he is. How was i misleading? The video gives one reason why people on both sides of the spectrum voted Brexit.

It seems that I'm not the only one with reading comprehension issues, so I will re-explain my post in a more verbose way:

Caruso said that the fact that a brexiter denies being racists at the beginning of most discussions is a proof that the brexiter is a racist.

Caruso's logic clearly fails, because there are a lot of alternative explanations that would cause this self-defensive attitude, so I just explain an easier explanation: the hostile context of name-calling that just assumes racisms is the only motive of all brexiters.

In fact Caruso's "argument" it's just an subtle ad-hominem fallacy, where instead of pointing the weak points of brexiter's arguments and/or offering positive arguments about its position, he just label the brexiters as "morally inferior" and, implicitly, himself as "virtuous and intellectually superior".

1) I was not saying anything about these well-researched fact, but about the wrong use by caruso in its fallacy.

2) I know about the correlation, but not about what are you implying? that low educated people votes must have a lower weight in a democracy?

3) the 'remainer media' has been dominant, from The Guardian to BBC, to the point that even me (a European immigrant living in UK that believes that the Brexit decision is harmful ftothis country) ended tired about the caricature that depicts brexiters as poor-uneducated-racists, reality (and, even more, human groups) are a lot more complex than that.

I don't get the relation between your answer and my critique of your fallacy. In fact, just proves my last assertion about your "intellectual and moral superiority" argument.

I'm also a foreigner living in this country, like you "I have eyes and a brain and I make up my opinions as I witness events unfold". I only speak 3 languages, but I have two degrees and a PhD, and I also read the press from several countries. But unlike you, even I wished that UK remained in EU, I'm open to understand that brexiter's motivations can be more complex and go beyond simple labels as 'racisms'.

The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism would disagree massively with you in regards to the direction of Media Bias. This is backed up by the Universtiy of Loughborough who did studies into the tone of coverage of the EU Referendum in the papers. They established that, weighted by circulation, Leave had an 82% to 18% advantage over Remain.

The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, The Express, The Metro, The Star, The Times - All Pro Brexit. 

The BBC News - Jury is out, but when it comes to Question Time, The Today Program, Daily Politics and This Week, all flagship political programs, they're all firmly Leave biased.

In regards to your bizarre illogical conclusion that I'm implying the lesser educated should carry lesser weight in the democratic process, I was simply pointing out that as a country, we weren't equipped to make any kind of decision of this nature. It was beyond most of us. Yet here we are, our destiny chosen by people who believe that experts aren't worth listening to, and that bendy bananas will not only be making a comeback, but will be enhancing our lives because they are!

I don't have access to the figures right now, but there are stats on how many Leavers and Remainers were on each of these programmes, as guests, panelists,etc. in the run up to the vote. Each were leave heavy.

Ok. No need to find the figures. I have no reason to doubt you.
But on a programme like Today I would think that the reaction of the presenters is more important. The political guests are given a grilling.
This may be the cause of my overall impression - I heard lots of Brexiteers being subjected to tough questioning. Rest assured, they were not able to just pontificate on the advantages of leaving without being challenged.

Indeed, that’s a fact (partially because the “leavers” were more “colourful” hence good for the ratings).

But even more important than the biased representation of views is the problem of misunderstanding what it means to give balanced coverage. The BBC especially failed over and over to call BS when their panelists were (basically all the time) stating that the planet is flat and the sun rotates around the earth.
Giving a free pass over and over and over to blatant falsehood is NOT balanced journalism. A balanced journalism is the one that calls BS whenever it faces it, independently from the political colour of the BS.
Balanced journalism for instance is the one that states clearly that the (very hard to find) “experts” supporting brexit have some of the worst credentials we have ever seen (maybe bar the Trump administration) in the public policy discourse, and some of the most blatant conflicts of interest.
Balanced journalism, to nod at the good old times, is the one of a republican journalist bringing down a republican president he had once endorsed because, well, we used to believe that blatant liars have no legitimacy for ruling the land - as a vote based on now clearly debunked lies has no legitimacy. And that should be stated sound and clear.

Nope. The no BS ones were model and econometrics driven predictions, with attached confidence bands and posterior probabilities - ie there were good numbers and there was pure BS. The BS won the referendum thanks to the free passes in media coverage (and xenophobia and austerity - the latter sponsored at the EU level by the UK btw). The good numbers (eg IFS’s ones) were, and have ex post been confirmed so far, 100% accurate (on growth, on exchange rates, on labour market supply, on public finances etc etc).

Saying that it is, and was, all the same is not only blatantly wrong, it is also damaging since it helps the BSers get away with it. There are people that spend countless hours to come up with decent forecasts following 800 years of sound methodology of science, hard core modelling, serious theoretical thinking, and massive data crunching. And there are people that simply said, and still say, just BS (often knowingly so and mostly out of self interest). They are NOT the same - some are liars, some are not, sorry.