Brexit dilemma

now there was a person who I used to know, but I'm going out on a limb here and expand upon this go a bit further by stating that this was a person I thought I used to know. I voiced my concerns about the Brexit vote and the degree and length to which people have to go to garner information to make an informed decision.

now this didn't happen on a regular basis - maybe semi-regular, but then came the preface and the rant, without fear or hesitation. "No, you're wrong because I read an article in the Guardian on the weekend...". Of all the prefaces this person could use without the name of the paper and the blatant "No, you're wrong".

Then came the rant. I stand by the statement I made to this day but, needless to say, the nonsense and bile this person spewed out in response had nothing to do with it.

In a perfect world, I envision a statement in the Guardian that would make the world a much nicer, safer place.

"It has come to our attention that a number, even many of our readers have used our articles to assert certain values not different to, but above and beyond the content of our paper. Or even use our content as a weapon to beat down the views and opinions of others. That is a weapon that our publication would prefer you didn't deploy. Maybe take it back a few steps and use our articles as a vehicle for discussion, rather than as a weapon to dismiss the outlook of others. If you are that passionate to embrace the content of our publication at the expense of others, creating discomfort in the process, maybe it's time to take stock of things. We even hope that this message makes certain readers realize their actions - they may not be aware they are doing it.

Let's be blunt. If you find yourself saying "No, you're wrong because I read an article in the Guardian...." That's fucked, get help."