The events showing dereliction of duty are no brainer. The events were televised.

My comment regarding federalism was to point at the irony involved in having a feature of "state rights" be the vehicle of creating fake electors alongside the power to remove candidates from the ballot.

Right, that one went past me. Excellent point.

The best outcome to push back against Trumpism and the degeneracy of these people would be if he completely and openly loses it and acts out his mental breakdown in front of cameras and the world to see in such an embarrassing moment that there's no possible way to spin it into something positive, even for them. — Christoffer

He’s getting pretty damn close a lot of the time. Nancy Pelosi noted, back at the time of the Ukraine phone-call impeachment, that Trump’s entire psychological repertoire is defined by projection - he projects all of the bad things he does on others, while in his own mind, he himself is perfect and incapable of doing wrong, which has been constantly reinforced by his getting away with it. When and if he’s finally confronted with the reality of a felony conviction, it might induce such a severe cognitive dissonance that he will literally crack up and begin to rave uncontrollably. I can’t ever see him accepting any culpability, he’ll loose his mind before doing that.

If Colorado does remove him, it will only martyr him more, and all for nothing, because Colorado wasn't going Trump anyway. — Hanover

Unless he gets a majority of votes nationwide. Then CO will, by legislative decree, add their support.

Don't count The Donald out. In an election in which a criminal runs against what many regard as a senile nitwit all bets are off.

it might induce such a severe cognitive dissonance that he will literally crack up and begin to rave uncontrollably. I can’t ever see him accepting any culpability, he’ll loose his mind before doing that. — Wayfarer

Yes. Although I feel the cell might be padded.

these people — Christoffer

Your fellow citizens and possible neighbours.

that cell had no walls... https://youtu.be/uMudKspE4bQ?si=ms0JRZgtsiKwjdmI

Your fellow citizens and possible neighbours. — Benkei

Your point being? It seems you didn't care to understand the point I'm making. We can criticize them for this behavior, but their behavior and handling of knowledge and information might be impossible for them to have honest introspection around. How do we fix the problem of populism for the people who are slaves to it?

"these people" is an expression separating yourself from them which makes you think in terms of "pushing back" against them. Do you want to push back against your neighbours or possibly even family because you don't agree with them?

It's also telling that anybody that voted for Trump is automatically an anti-intellectual in your book.

So the point is that your way of speaking about others betray several assumptions that make it completely understandable why "these people" don't vote for the candidate you'd vote for.

because you don't agree with them? — Benkei

This is the problem with your counter argument. It's not about disagreement, it's about what functions as a foundation for knowledge and opinions. If they are slaves to the wave of misinformation and disinformation that makes them radicalized into things like Trumpism and right wing extremism, then that's not about "not agreeing with them", that's about radicalization into some form of extremism.

I could say "radicalized people" instead if that makes the point clearer. And the point being is that some people are more susceptible to such radicalization than others.

That there's a spectrum of abilities among the population to be able to understand complex information and act in good strategy of handling that information and not form radicalized ideas instead, is just a fact on human cognition and psychology. There's a difference between not agreeing on strategies for reaching solutions to societal problems, and ignoring actual facts and instead replace them with, essentially, fiction, which is how radicalized people functions.

Is it inaccurate to say that these radicalized people are anti-intellectuals? When they are more often than not actively acting out anti-expert, anti-academic, anti-anyone who uses knowledge and complex information to form solutions and answers to problems? A core tenet of their rhetoric is the dismissal of anyone who are part of groups essential for building a knowledge base in the world. And I'm not talking about politicians and other populists on the other side here, I'm talking about scientists, philosophers, writers and further thinkers who are only trying to figure out the complexity of the world. The radicalized people I'm talking about are actively hostile against them and that is why I call them anti-intellectuals. Because they've been radicalized into such anti-intellectualism by people like Trump, who in his language spreads hostility towards intellectuals to a point where some of his followers send death threats.

So, it's not about agreement or non-agreement between people, it's about how some people are being manipulated by misinformation and disinformation into either lacking any functioning substance of knowledge or being manipulated into beliefs that are actively hurting society and in the end themselves the most.

What you are doing is to actively misunderstand my argument based on a preconceived notion that you may have encountered with others in these types of discussions. When I say "these people", you immediately jump into the populistic mindset of war between two sides, disregarding actually understanding the point I'm making here. Unable to realize that I'm talking about these people more as victims of manipulation than enemies to be fought.

What's to be fought is the manipulation, the radicalization, the misinformation and disinformation. The strategies of wealthy people, lobbyists, politicians and power hungry despots to manipulate society into fighting each other instead of fighting problems in the world. The absolute ruthless hunt for voters, by any means necessary, skewing democracy into a degenerate shell of what it's supposed to be.

To return to the last point in my previous post...

"The problem isn't really Trump or his followers, it's how we operate in a world in which this online sphere of influence produces new Trumps all over the place. How do we fix the source of the problem?"

Please take off the populist hat and understand the point I'm making here.

If they are slaves to the wave of misinformation and disinformation that makes them radicalized into things like Trumpism and right wing extremism — Christoffer

I don't think it's very accurate to consider them "slaves" though. Yes once in a certain information environment, it's hard to break out. But this is less because of some outside imposing force and more because emotional needs have become enmeshed with the information environment.

Two things are important to keep in mind: that however wrong the theories, the Trumpian kind of extremism takes up real feelings of alienation and catastrophic breakdown. These feelings aren't particular to Trump supporters. Second, plenty of topics are viable for conspiracy mongering because most everyone is in denial about them to some extent, so this denial is merely rerouted.

"The problem isn't really Trump or his followers, it's how we operate in a world in which this online sphere of influence produces new Trumps all over the place. How do we fix the source of the problem?" — Christoffer

I think the online sphere acts more as a catalyst than as the source of the problem. Social Media in particular has hugely reshaped out culture and our beliefs. But it is not in and of itself the source of the feelings that the conspiracies are a response to. That source is a crisis of western ideology. The new information environment has enabled a radical retreat into a fantasy world that supplies our longing for community, self-actualisation and self-absolution as a response.

I don't think it's very accurate to consider them "slaves" though. — Echarmion

We are all slaves to narratives. To say otherwise is to be blind towards biases. The key is how well we know our shackles and how well we can act against them. But in a world in which marketing and ideology rules the way we operate, we are all slaves to some kind of narrative.

The core problem is however that some are more susceptible to these narratives than others, it can be due to low education making it hard for them to see the framework of narratives that higher educations provide, or it could be due to high susceptibility of emotional manipulation making it impossible to find rational grounding.

A "slave" in this regard is better thought of as the level of subjugation to a ruling property, either a person or organisation in power, an ideal or a narrative. The problem is that if language keeps getting in the way of making my point, then it becomes impossible to communicate ideas. It's better to look at the holistic overview of the point being made, rather than getting lost in semantics of words.

We have somewhat of a problem today with how single words have become so loaded that any holistic point gets lost due to people just taking aim at singular words, like "these people" or "slaves", without looking at the grander context.

Two things are important to keep in mind: that however wrong the theories, the Trumpian kind of extremism takes up real feelings of alienation and catastrophic breakdown. These feelings aren't particular to Trump supporters. Second, plenty of topics are viable for conspiracy mongering because most everyone is in denial about them to some extent, so this denial is merely rerouted. — Echarmion

Of course, and that's the basics of the root problem I'm talking about. How do we solve the root of the problem? How do we give guidance to help battle such feelings and such dread in people while fighting off the ones who want to use these people just to gain democratic power through their votes without actually caring for them at all?

Because these powerful people and organizations in power aren't trying to gain supporters to help them, they are manipulating people through radicalization in order to gain power for themselves. In Trump's case it may even be that it's for something as basic and childish as feeding his personal narcissism rather than some actual long form power play to shape society in his own image, even if others around him support him in order to gain such power.

I'm not taking a particular aim at the random Trump voter, I'm taking an aim at how people in power have created a manipulative radicalization machinery that takes advantage of people who haven't the tools to easily spot this kind of manipulation. If we are all slaves to narratives, all slaves to biases and we live in a time when the internet has become a weaponized manipulation machine that effectively made democracy into almost a tool of control over people rather than push liberty and freedom, then the root of the problem is getting these people off the drug of radicalization and manipulation and fighting against people of power who want to utilize online strategies to manipulate themselves into having more autocratic power.

But instead, everyone polarize themselves into arguing over the symptoms. Trump is only one figure in all of this, there are Trump-like people in power all over the world and the threat to democracy isn't their specific shenanigans, but the underlying manipulation of people making democracy into a system of control.

I think the online sphere acts more as a catalyst than as the source of the problem. Social Media in particular has hugely reshaped out culture and our beliefs. But it is not in and of itself the source of the feelings that the conspiracies are a response to. That source is a crisis of western ideology. The new information environment has enabled a radical retreat into a fantasy world that supplies our longing for community, self-actualisation and self-absolution as a response. — Echarmion

Yes, but social media and the online sphere is a radicalization machine. It's built upon pushing negatives and destructive arguments to the front while pushing back on everything else. The algorithms are built for this because it drives the businesses of the big tech corps. They don't care about the consequences, the consequences are only cared for when rules and regulations are put on them to change and then they market themselves as caring about people's mental health as an afterthought. It's all within their narrative of control for their sector. But the algorithms are still putting people onto the online battleground and it radicalizes people into groups that in turn echo-chamber themselves into radicalized soldiers for these causes, pushing their hostility further and further until some of them storm the capitol, kill someone else, alienating themselves from friends and relatives, joining extremist groups, voting on despots and so on.

The damage to humanity that this is doing cannot be overstated and while we have existential problems outside of the online sphere, we are moving into a Baudrillardian desert of the real in which people cannot see the difference between the reality online and the reality outside.

The way to solve the existential problems is primarily to communicate, talk, discuss and meet people. It's the hard coded nature of survival that drives solutions and progression of ideas to better ourselves. But the online sphere is such a powerful manipulative algorithmic machine that you cannot take aim at those core issues while the algorithms skew reality and polarize people into arbitrary topics.

The counter culture that would help humanity to better ourselves is to fight against the system that radicalize ourselves into oblivion. We need a better internet, we need a better system not based on these privatized giants who doesn't care if the world burns as long as they gain massive wealth on the users.

Imagine a Facebook, Instagram, TikTok or whatever, that doesn't have ads, doesn't have algorithms based on optimizing for these ads and instead have algorithms that focus not on pushing conflicts, but pushing productive dialogue and good manners towards each other. It would need to be handled in the way of something like Wikipedia and it would need to be a place where people actually want to be, it would need to be the main place for the world to be on... and I'm not sure how that can be done when the world is so mentally fractured as it is today, and so in shackles by the megacorps owning all platforms while populist politicians gain support from these capitalists as they gain power from less regulation and rules while the megacorps can skew the population into democratically push back against movements trying to enforce more regulations onto them.

It's a loosing game if people don't wake up to these facts on their own.

We have somewhat of a problem today with how single words have become so loaded that any holistic point gets lost due to people just taking aim at singular words, like "these people" or "slaves", without looking at the grander context. — Christoffer

The point I wanted to make is that the people concerned still have agency. Part of the solution involves creating a new mainstream where the energy that these people currently expend on "conspiracy activism" is turned towards actually positive goals.

But instead, everyone polarize themselves into arguing over the symptoms. Trump is only one figure in all of this, there are Trump-like people in power all over the world and the threat to democracy isn't their specific shenanigans, but the underlying manipulation of people making democracy into a system of control. — Christoffer

I think part of the issue is that democracy was already well on the way of becoming a "system of control", because the democratic political institutions were being impoverished and starved.

So the solution probably involves reinvigorating democratic politics. Which means grassroots activism, political involvement beyond the ballot box via vehicles like unions etc. We could probably look at how e.g. Steve Bannon creates his political movement and take some cues from that.

People need to experience politics as something they actively do again, rather than as a succession of narratives being fed to them so they vote the right way once every four years.

The left also desperately needs to be more inclusive and stop focusing on every issue through the lense of one particular identity. Ever since the project of Marxism had definitely collapsed, the left seems to have lost its sense of an overarching, positive vision for the future. There have been important victories in particular fields like LGBTQ rights and anti-raciam and feminism, but arguably at the expense of splitting the left into ever smaller movement of individual identities. People like Bannon step into this vacuum and instead fill it with a horror story.

The counter culture that would help humanity to better ourselves is to fight against the system that radicalize ourselves into oblivion. We need a better internet, we need a better system not based on these privatized giants who doesn't care if the world burns as long as they gain massive wealth on the users. — Christoffer

Yes, we'd need to break the monopolisation of our internet spaces, and turn them into public goods. This will require a break with capitalist ideology, which unfortunately has been almost unopposed for decades now. So first the groundwork would have to be laid to make a critique of capitalism no longer the realm of fringe theorists or extremists. It would really help to have better online spaces for that. It's a real catch-22.

The point I wanted to make is that the people concerned still have agency. Part of the solution involves creating a new mainstream where the energy that these people currently expend on "conspiracy activism" is turned towards actually positive goals. — Echarmion

I agree, although this point is somewhat self-contradictory in that you say people have agency, but then point out that we need a new mainstream that can steer them in a new direction. Meaning, people do not have agency, they are determined by directions of society. Which is what I say when I talk about narratives. The narratives that shape our perception of reality defines the choices made and if the perception of reality is skewed by power hungry narcissists and we fail to protect democracy from such people because we are lazy and naive, then they dictate the narratives steering society, not people with better intentions for humanity.

We can never be free of narratives, they're part of the human condition. We can only focus on forming better narratives that focus on bettering ourselves, improving our well being and progress humanity into a better future for all, if we want that to happen.

I think part of the issue is that democracy was already well on the way of becoming a "system of control", because the democratic political institutions were being impoverished and starved. — Echarmion

The problem with the degeneration of democracy is that society have handled democracy in a sloppy and naive way. Instead of installing institutions that self-control democracy so that it never corrupts society from the core values of democracy, we just let society constantly balance on a knife's edge so that a nation could vote away democracy all together if they've successfully been manipulated enough.

As long as democracy focus on voting on specific people and not ideas and solutions, we will always have a corrupt system as we are rather focusing on personality traits and theatrics rather than actual decisions for society.

I think that the combination of capitalism and democracy have created this self-perpetual machine in which we have power hungry people who care nothing for society, only manage to take decisions for society because capitalism demands it, or else people will revolt.

Basically, no one's at the steering wheel. No vision exist, no ideas are being formed by knowledgeable people and instead society just flows by itself. That would have been good, if not for all the destructive messes it also generates.

So the solution probably involves reinvigorating democratic politics. Which means grassroots activism, political involvement beyond the ballot box via vehicles like unions etc. We could probably look at how e.g. Steve Bannon creates his political movement and take some cues from that. — Echarmion

That's only generated more populist movements with people using the speed of online marketing to manipulate themselves into power fast before anyone notice the problems they pull with them.

The solution is to fine tune the democratic system so that populist narcissists and people only interested in power gets replaced by people working for the needs of society more than pushing their own names and egos. If we had systems that removed people in power more easily when they abuse their power, and if politicians were forced to act more in-line with how the core democratic values of being "the people's voice" in politics, that would force democratic politics into being more focused on solving societal problems and help people rather than putting all energy into the illusion of helping or improving.

Ever since the project of Marxism had definitely collapsed — Echarmion

I don't think it collapsed, I think that the critique of capitalism is alive and healthy and with how extreme the difference between the rich and poor through the catalyst of neoliberalism has become I think we'll see more of it as time goes on. There's definitely gonna be pushes for more Marxist ideas through a Hegelian slave/master analysis going forward. The problem is that the polarized masses of left/right people who are uneducated on the actual concepts of criticism against capitalism just forms another part of the radicalized population who are stuck in a loop of non-solutions in society, battling out amateur interpretations and not actually doing proper philosophical discourse on that matter.

Yes, we'd need to break the monopolisation of our internet spaces, and turn them into public goods. This will require a break with capitalist ideology, which unfortunately has been almost unopposed for decades now. So first the groundwork would have to be laid to make a critique of capitalism no longer the realm of fringe theorists or extremists. It would really help to have better online spaces for that. It's a real catch-22. — Echarmion

Exactly, criticism of capitalism is not really an ideology for any left or right leaning movement, it's part of the discourse to solve problems in society. Anyone who says capitalism is the root of all problems or that capitalism is the root to all solutions don't know what they're talking about and stand in the way of actual discourse for solutions and the progression of ideas on how we better society for all.

One solution for the online sphere is to create a new space that is considered better than the rest. I've seen this happen with things like computer software. When all major corporations produce subscription based software that they constantly increase the subscription price on while slowing down on innovation and progress, people get fed up by it and as soon as something that's open source reaches a point where it actually competes with the paid options, people start to move over to it and the corporations lose money. Even if they later put money into innovation, they hardly get the users back since the trust is lost and people don't want to be stuck in a system of manipulation by the companies who mostly put on a smiley face and dance the marketing dance to form the illusion of comfort with their software.

People don't trust these megacorps, people don't trust Facebook or TikTok, they only tolerate them because there's no wide spread alternative. If an alternative grows and their promise and delivery matches and outcompete the others, that can shift society. It's basically playing by the rules of the free market game, but with open source solutions that democratize spaces away from destructive algorithms.

Think of Wikipedia. It's been tested and found out to be more generally trustworthy for the purpose of sources of knowledge than many established and paid for sources, regardless of what people believe is the case. And because it's widely used, widely known and "open source", there's no destructive algorithms to be found. It's focused on being a good function and a good part of our online experience.

If we can generate better social media spaces that focus on having a similar good reputation, that doesn't have a big business behind it, that doesn't have a tech guru front figure wanting to reshape the world based on their skewed point of view, and that focus on gathering people on positive grounds with algorithms pushing back at destructive actions and behaviors, and being free of ulterior capitalistic motives... then that might save us from these radicalization machines.

But it demands an effort to create something that first and foremost can compete on the free market and deliver a better experience than all the others. Maybe if nations around the world were to have a fund for it. In which democratic nations fund the development and management of such an online space based on principles like the UN, a united space that cannot be corrupted by a single nation or corporation, in which there's no other focus than having a space for all to gather in, free from market movements and the manipulation of the people in favor of the people in power or narratives of nations.

One could dream.

This is the problem with your counter argument. — Christoffer

It's not a counter argument. I'm highlighting the arrogant and elitist way you speak about people that don't view the world in terms that you do.

I agree, although this point is somewhat self-contradictory in that you say people have agency, but then point out that we need a new mainstream that can steer them in a new direction. Meaning, people do not have agency, they are determined by directions of society. Which is what I say when I talk about narratives. The narratives that shape our perception of reality defines the choices made and if the perception of reality is skewed by power hungry narcissists and we fail to protect democracy from such people because we are lazy and naive, then they dictate the narratives steering society, not people with better intentions for humanity. — Christoffer

I did not mean to imply that the mainstream is some inexorable force. More that we need a mass movement that offers more productive activism.

We can never be free of narratives, they're part of the human condition. We can only focus on forming better narratives that focus on bettering ourselves, improving our well being and progress humanity into a better future for all, if we want that to happen. — Christoffer

Sure, but that doesn't imply the narrative needs to be cynically exploited to steer the stupid masses to enlightened goals.

The problem with the degeneration of democracy is that society have handled democracy in a sloppy and naive way. Instead of installing institutions that self-control democracy so that it never corrupts society from the core values of democracy, we just let society constantly balance on a knife's edge so that a nation could vote away democracy all together if they've successfully been manipulated enough. — Christoffer

There's no way to insulate democracy from the demos. A democracy that's immune to it's self-dissolution is kind of an oxymoron. German has an "eternity clause" in its constitution, stating that certain parts (like the basic democratic constitution) can not be altered under any circumstances. But obviously the constitution is ultimately just a "scrap of paper". Such a clause only works so long as the paper retains legitimacy

Which is why I think the more important institutions are the soft, cultural ones.

As long as democracy focus on voting on specific people and not ideas and solutions, we will always have a corrupt system as we are rather focusing on personality traits and theatrics rather than actual decisions for society. — Christoffer

How would that actually work though? Electoral politics inherently draws certain personalities. It's seems more useful to work around that than try to somehow make the process as impersonal as possible.

I think that the combination of capitalism and democracy have created this self-perpetual machine in which we have power hungry people who care nothing for society, only manage to take decisions for society because capitalism demands it, or else people will revolt.

Basically, no one's at the steering wheel. No vision exist, no ideas are being formed by knowledgeable people and instead society just flows by itself. That would have been good, if not for all the destructive messes it also generates. — Christoffer

This is true in a sense, since there is no overarching progressive vision. But of course there are people who actively do the steering. Some interests groups are definetly powerful and their particular interests have a noticeable effect on policy. It's not simply something as abstract as society in general.

That's only generated more populist movements with people using the speed of online marketing to manipulate themselves into power fast before anyone notice the problems they pull with them.

The solution is to fine tune the democratic system so that populist narcissists and people only interested in power gets replaced by people working for the needs of society more than pushing their own names and egos. If we had systems that removed people in power more easily when they abuse their power, and if politicians were forced to act more in-line with how the core democratic values of being "the people's voice" in politics, that would force democratic politics into being more focused on solving societal problems and help people rather than putting all energy into the illusion of helping or improving. — Christoffer

Isn't that what we're already trying and failing to do? No-one has a recipe for getting "the right people" into the job, and I think this is ultimately a fool's errand. The problem isn't really that the politicians are uniquely bad, it's that they're exposed to pressures and temptations that lead to bad decisions.

The way to avoid this is not to rely on a theoretical superhuman which is somehow pure and good, but to broaden the base these people stand on. More people need to be involved in the nitty-gritty of local politics, so they have an understanding of how they work, broaden the pool of possible candidates and are aware of how to effectively advocate for themselves.

A popular movement need not be populist. Populism is a particular perversion of the popular.

I don't think it collapsed, I think that the critique of capitalism is alive and healthy and with how extreme the difference between the rich and poor through the catalyst of neoliberalism has become I think we'll see more of it as time goes on. There's definitely gonna be pushes for more Marxist ideas through a Hegelian slave/master analysis going forward. — Christoffer

It's been 30 years since the SU collapsed and capitalism is running rampant. How much longer will that take?

The problem is that the polarized masses of left/right people who are uneducated on the actual concepts of criticism against capitalism just forms another part of the radicalized population who are stuck in a loop of non-solutions in society, battling out amateur interpretations and not actually doing proper philosophical discourse on that matter. — Christoffer

So your solution is to somehow conjure up a population of proper philosophers? How would that work?

One solution for the online sphere is to create a new space that is considered better than the rest. I've seen this happen with things like computer software. When all major corporations produce subscription based software that they constantly increase the subscription price on while slowing down on innovation and progress, people get fed up by it and as soon as something that's open source reaches a point where it actually competes with the paid options, people start to move over to it and the corporations lose money. Even if they later put money into innovation, they hardly get the users back since the trust is lost and people don't want to be stuck in a system of manipulation by the companies who mostly put on a smiley face and dance the marketing dance to form the illusion of comfort with their software. — Christoffer

Alternative spaces exist, but so far the holding power of the existing ecosystems seems to be too strong. X/Twitter is a good example where, despite bad management and various alternative platforms, the inertia of its huge membership is keeping it afloat (for now).

Convenience is king in the fast moving world and the social media giants are very adept at offering it.

People don't trust these megacorps, people don't trust Facebook or TikTok, they only tolerate them because there's no wide spread alternative. If an alternative grows and their promise and delivery matches and outcompete the others, that can shift society. It's basically playing by the rules of the free market game, but with open source solutions that democratize spaces away from destructive algorithms. — Christoffer

I would rather say that people live in denial of how they're feeding the machine. It's much easier to project all your fears about surveillance on, say, a vaccine app than to cut your social media ties. The mistrust and the lack of privacy don't have an outlet, so we end up with conspiracy narratives as one option. Or people simply embrace the lack of privacy as the price of admission.

Without a popular systematic critique I don't see how we get enough of a movement going to decisively shift away from the current domination by big platforms.

Think of Wikipedia. It's been tested and found out to be more generally trustworthy for the purpose of sources of knowledge than many established and paid for sources, regardless of what people believe is the case. And because it's widely used, widely known and "open source", there's no destructive algorithms to be found. It's focused on being a good function and a good part of our online experience.

If we can generate better social media spaces that focus on having a similar good reputation, that doesn't have a big business behind it, that doesn't have a tech guru front figure wanting to reshape the world based on their skewed point of view, and that focus on gathering people on positive grounds with algorithms pushing back at destructive actions and behaviors, and being free of ulterior capitalistic motives... then that might save us from these radicalization machines.

But it demands an effort to create something that first and foremost can compete on the free market and deliver a better experience than all the others. Maybe if nations around the world were to have a fund for it. In which democratic nations fund the development and management of such an online space based on principles like the UN, a united space that cannot be corrupted by a single nation or corporation, in which there's no other focus than having a space for all to gather in, free from market movements and the manipulation of the people in favor of the people in power or narratives of nations.

One could dream. — Christoffer

Well we'd need to generate the impetus for such a shift somehow. I don't think there's an alternative to building a movement to provide that.

Wikipedia was lucky in that it came up early, before a monetised alternative took root. With social media, we do not have that luxury.

It's not a counter argument. I'm highlighting the arrogant and elitist way you speak about people that don't view the world in terms that you do. — Benkei

Fair enough, but maybe my mind didn't even think about that in my second language of writing in a post where my intention was to make my point as clear as possible and not make the post longer than it had to be. It's funny that semantics trigger you into ignoring my overall point and instead you just rage as an attack dog at "how elitist" I am, while ignoring the holistic perspective of my writing which clearly has a much more inclusive idea about these radicalized people as victims of manipulative abuse by people in power.

But the problem with how you frame this is that the people I talk about does not see the world clearly, that's the entire point of radicalization, to force a point of view that is exaggerated and sometimes downright false. I'm not talking about people who feel betrayed by Democrats and want change in how the government treats them and their lives, that's a point of view that I respect since it comes from an honest place and correct democratic usage of the system. But can you honestly just sum up these radicalized people's opinions as "because they don't view the world in terms that you do"? When these opinions are clearly a mashup of conspiracy nonsense, racism, triggered hate built up by hate speeches from populist politicians and so on?

What you seem to do is actively ignoring what I'm actually talking about and just invent your own idea in order to just trigger some arbitrary side-onflict. If I talk about Trumpism and the radicalized right wing, then I'm not really talking about the common Republican voter now am I?

So while I get your point and can change the overall grammar of my writing, it just feels like you are cherry picking stuff to initiate conflict and that's just low hanging fruit. Let me test doing the same, just to make the point clearer: "Your argument about that specific sentence just shows you the unfair way you treat people who doesn't use English as their first language, ignoring that some choice of words and grammar may not have the same attached value in other countries compared to yours and scolding others based on your own perspective of these words and your own higher knowledge of the language just comes off as elitist against others."

If you need to remark on how something is written, just remark on the problem clearly instead of using a grammatical source in order to dismiss the entire argument and intentionally ignore the specificity of it. It's like "guilt by association" but with grammar.

Sure, but that doesn't imply the narrative needs to be cynically exploited to steer the stupid masses to enlightened goals. — Echarmion

No, that's not what I meant. If narratives are something that we can never be without, then the narratives to shape the world by should always be the most honest, the most carefully thought through and which includes as much liberty for the people as possible. It should be based on common grounds of moral thinking and ecological health for both humans and the environment.

If such narratives are used, then the people will find good paths for themselves and society over time without any force.

However, the problem today is that narratives are not only fractured into thousands of different narratives, most of them are invented lies by those with power over the powerless. Our world consist of stories that push inaccuracies, fake news, opinions as facts, blatant brainwashing etc.

Is it cynical to argue for dismantling this chaos and form better common grounds for all, not in someone's name, but by ideas that people generally share as basic ideals of good, hidden underneath all of these false narratives that cloud people's core values?

It's not this that's cynical, it's the world that's cynical for thinking this is impossible.

There's no way to insulate democracy from the demos. A democracy that's immune to it's self-dissolution is kind of an oxymoron. German has an "eternity clause" in its constitution, stating that certain parts (like the basic democratic constitution) can not be altered under any circumstances. But obviously the constitution is ultimately just a "scrap of paper". Such a clause only works so long as the paper retains legitimacy

Which is why I think the more important institutions are the soft, cultural ones. — Echarmion

The soft cultural ones also only works as long as that's the social contract to protect it.

What I meant with protecting democracy is rather to make sure the eye is on the ball. Actions that block demagogues from taking power. Forcing them to focus on issues and forcing them to have actually functioning plans, both in financial structure and scope. Even in the most functioning democracies, the parties who take power more often than not throw their promises out the window whenever they've got into seats of power. There's no repercussions on this and they play the long game with people forgetting that they broke the promises made. On top of that, debates and rallies have politicians just spew out insults and ad hominems against their opponents.

Here's one single thing that can be written into as a kind of law of democracy in order to improve it over night. Candidates and parties cannot use ad hominems and are not allowed to form rallies on inaccuracies. After using too many documented ad hominems and inaccuracies with facts, they are not allowed to be voted on. This would force politicians to be more careful in their politics, they would have to focus on actual issues and the facts surrounding those issues. They can also not get support on the grounds of attacking the opponent's character. I know the US would improve a lot since it seems the US modern politics is basically built upon these character attacks and invented realities through false statements.

My point is that we don't need to have it written into law that democracies cannot be changed, but we need to be able to fine-tune non-functioning and easily corruptible democracies to function better and be more robust against corruption and people abusing power.

There's a lot that could be done.

How would that actually work though? Electoral politics inherently draws certain personalities. It's seems more useful to work around that than try to somehow make the process as impersonal as possible. — Echarmion

Why? Why focus on personalities and people's emotions about these politicians personas? Why is that preferable to focusing on the actual issues in society and possible solutions to them? If some people start to lack interest in politics because it's not as "fun" as when someone like Trump do his shenanigans, and because of that choose not to vote, then that's better than forcing people who have no insight or knowledge into a subject to vote.

This focus on maximizing the amount of voters as an idea for a functioning democracy, without regard for how well those votes are knowledgeable in the questions they are voting for, is just such a backwards ideal for what democracy is.

I respect someone who does not vote if they don't know what they're voting on, that is telling me that this person understands their current limits of knowledge and if they spent more time learning about the topics they would have a better foundation for voting. Pushing people to vote by manipulating them with false narratives and emotional arguments is just as bad as blocking people from voting all together.

Democracy should be about informing people on the issues in society and possible solutions, with facts and honesty so that the people can vote for what they feel is the solution closest to their own values in life. Anything else is manipulation that's corrupting the system and forming another strategy of control over the people rather than giving people the democratic control over society.

Some interests groups are definetly powerful and their particular interests have a noticeable effect on policy. It's not simply something as abstract as society in general. — Echarmion

And these people are the ones in actual power. Not in the "illuminati"-level conspiracy type, but their money fuels politicians manipulation of the public. Society gets shaped by their intentions and the public does not necessarily know what their aim is.

That's part of why democracy needs to be fine-tuned away from these systems and be free from hidden influences by practices and consequences for those who abuse their power. Like, why not block all inflow of funds from lobbyists and count it all as bribery? Have a neutral institute that functions on effective bureaucracy to constantly review and investigate politicians in power and if caught, they're out effected immediately.

The protection of politicians, especially in the US, is in a way it's own level of corruption. There's no wonder that the US isn't high on lists about low corruption governments.

Isn't that what we're already trying and failing to do? No-one has a recipe for getting "the right people" into the job, and I think this is ultimately a fool's errand. The problem isn't really that the politicians are uniquely bad, it's that they're exposed to pressures and temptations that lead to bad decisions. — Echarmion

We only fail that because we play lose with the freedoms that people in power have. The bar set on what a competent politician is, is set so low that overgrown children like Trump reaches the highest office.

The recipe is to first evaluate different democracies around the world and see which one's have good fail safes against corruption and incompetence. And if we have much stricter rules about ad hominem rhetoric and a demand on accuracy in facts, statements and follow-ups on promises, then that would drive a lot of demagogues away either by not being able to drive their agenda or being excluded from taking part by their own incompetence.

It's like, everyone needs to get a driver's license in order to drive a car, otherwise it's not safe for others in society. But we have no real demands on politicians having a certain level of competence for driving an entire nation?

More people need to be involved in the nitty-gritty of local politics, so they have an understanding of how they work, broaden the pool of possible candidates and are aware of how to effectively advocate for themselves.

A popular movement need not be populist. Populism is a particular perversion of the popular. — Echarmion

But this is exactly what doesn't work, because in our modern world we have created a society that is so distracted by irrelevant noise from everywhere that people have no interest in politics.

We cheer the fact that just slightly over half of the population go to vote, and mostly because of extreme marketing on emotionally heighten ad hominem arguments and inaccurate exaggerations on topics actually not related to many of those who vote.

How in the world would you get people more interested in politics on the actual grounds of the boring day to day work of politics? No one cares, they want to live their lives and not think too much.

If we can only get people to vote by tricking them with emotional arguments, then don't. Do the proper thing and inform people about issues, about solutions to those issues, give people the option to learn for free about what each politician running wants to do, let people choose to participate on honest grounds without manipulation.

If some people choose not to vote, then don't force them. But don't block them from learning about who to vote for if they want to and let them have accurate information rather than dishonest manipulation.

We need less marketing in democracies, and more information. There's a clear difference between the two. Marketing leads to populism and demagogues, informing leads to less populism and demagogues.

It requires a restructure of the entire democratic process. It requires new laws and constitutional principles to restrict manipulation and push accurate information, but it would definitely improve the stability of a democracy.

It's been 30 years since the SU collapsed and capitalism is running rampant. How much longer will that take? — Echarmion

We're only just now starting to see the consequences of the neoliberal free market that was pushed in the 80's. Why do you think we see so many young people on the left picking up Marx ideas to criticize capitalism? People who opt out from the job market by choice? And why do you think the opposite side of young neoliberals forming almost cult like behaviors around stock market strategies and "how to maximize your efficiency"-influencers?

These polarizing signs shows the contours of a collapsing structure. An increasing critique and an increasing enforcement. Both desperate on each end with less focus on a balanced system in the middle. Something will eventually break.

So your solution is to somehow conjure up a population of proper philosophers? How would that work? — Echarmion

Philosophical discourse doesn't mean philosophers, it means a higher quality of discourse as opposed to the emotional battles of online debates.

One way to inspire such things would be to educate people on why it is preferable, why such discourse is more effective through not reaching who's right and who's wrong, but reaching a higher enlightened state after each discourse, with the aim of both sides reaching higher knowledge together rather than trying to bash an opinion into the skull of the other.

Schools don't do this, parents don't do this, society doesn't do this. People learn to fight for their ideals, not to inspire others by their ideals. And we teach each other to value your ego in a battle against the world rather than you being part of a world.

And with the online algorithms pushing people more into fights than into discussions and proper discourse, we have this radicalization machine making it even harder to get people to realize the futility of a fast battle compared to the slow but healthy progression of philosophical discourse.

Convenience is king in the fast moving world and the social media giants are very adept at offering it. — Echarmion

They're not offering anything valid, they have a system that uses addictive systems to trick people into their platform being the best.

Like, just compare having a discussion on Facebook and this place, which one is more effective for the purpose of discussion? The odd and clumsy format of writing, the non-existing formatting options, the inability to quote properly... so why are people more inclined to discuss on Facebook? Because its addictiveness keeps them there longer. But the system in itself is lackluster to say the least.

These platforms have actively studied psychology and formed their systems based on what triggers our primal brain to interact with it. And it works best with children and teenagers, still developing their brains. It's easier because you, as the platform, can influence how their brains develop and more easily keep them hooked to the system, just like drugs have a higher addictiveness on younger people than older. Same principles.

To popularize a social media hub that does not have these addictive systems require an effort on the user and the common user is lazy and uninterested and will more often than not choose the drug over the sallad.

So it's not convenience really, it's a sort of getting the entire world into rehab and then get them on board a consequently less flashy alternative.

How? I have no idea really. Only if the functionality and lack of ads is better than the others and people reach a point of being more fed up with the old hubs cluttered reality and feel that a less flashy but more clean and functioning alternative is preferable.

But I have little hope that people choose the healthy over unhealthy until they face their own mortality.

Without a popular systematic critique I don't see how we get enough of a movement going to decisively shift away from the current domination by big platforms. — Echarmion

And this requires knowledge, wisdom, experts and facts to be preferable rather than our current narrative of anti-intellectualism. Systematic critique requires people to see past the day to day reality they live within, to see the borders of their common existence, and that requires knowledge, wisdom and experts to be popular again rather than clowns like Trump.

Well we'd need to generate the impetus for such a shift somehow. I don't think there's an alternative to building a movement to provide that.

Wikipedia was lucky in that it came up early, before a monetised alternative took root. With social media, we do not have that luxury. — Echarmion

Yes, and the irony is that if we were to create a platform, funded by nations in a UN type constellation, in order to push back on state-funded corruption and manipulation on that platform, people will think it's even more corrupt compared to the blatant corporation control that current platforms and state-owned platforms like TikTok have on us right now.

People are so ingrained into the false narratives of the world that they trust the liars and distrust the honest.

The problem with the assumption that people are pushed around by “narratives” is that it should be just as easy to push them in the opposite direction through the very same methods. But try to talk them out of what they believe and you’ll see that theory falsified immediately.

Rather, it is the fragility of the grand narrative that has led to its repudiation. Those tasked with ordering our lives, with informing us, with protecting our livelihoods and liberties, have all revealed themselves to be incompetent, corrupt, and self-concerned frauds, so much so that a reality TV host can come in for one term and do a better job than someone who has spent his life in politics. And despite the propaganda, people can witness with their own eyes the nonsense that is the current order. Under the current and typical regime it appears we are inching towards total war and economic failure, both of which the reactionary and incompetent experts told us would happen under the Trump regime, but never did. So maybe it isn’t any narrative that pulls us away from our obedience to the old regime, but its own stupidity and corruption.

The problem with the assumption that people are pushed around by “narratives” is that it should be just as easy to push them in the opposite direction through the very same methods. — NOS4A2

That implies that the methods are neutral, which they aren't. And it says a lot about the people using the methods.

And narratives are all around us, everyone is following a narrative of some sort, it's not about produced narratives for the purpose of manipulation. A narrative can also be a moral code, it can be the values guiding someone's daily life. But, in the purpose I'm speaking of, it's manufactured, just like manufactured realities in commercials and ads forming a fiction that they hope customers will follow by buying their product, so to does the manufactured reality of political campaigns form the world view of the voters. To the point that they fight over fictional realities that confuse actual reality even further, making it extra hard for researched truth to become mainstream.

both of which the reactionary and incompetent experts told us would happen under the Trump regime — NOS4A2

This ignores the fact that change doesn't just happen directly. It's easy to make the counter argument that the entire ensemble of Trumps, Bannons, Johnsons etc. over the course of the past years have built up the foundation for what is now happening. How can you be so sure that your narrative is the correct one when all you support it by is your own opinion on it? Maybe the past years have been inching towards all of this, with the a catalyst of a pandemic pushing it even faster, and that the current politicians are just trying to mitigate the damage that is going on?

Whenever I see debates between polarized sides I see the same broken arguments. One side blames the current dominating political narrative, whatever it may be, as something that is the root of the problems in the world while the other says that it's the result of the past years of the opposite political narrative. And whenever the political landscape flips, we hear the same arguments flipped between the sides of the debate.

I'm tired of hearing it, it has no foundation in reality, it has no foundation in the complexities of all moving parts and it is just keeping us in the manipulated narratives people are slaves to.

The Lincoln Project pulling no punches.

News organizations have turned Biden’s age (granted, a legitimate concern) into the equivalent of a scandal. In story after story, headline after headline, they emphasize not his administration’s accomplishments, but the fact that he’s 80. A New York Times headline during his recent diplomatic mission to Asia epitomized this, turning the president’s joke about jet lag into an impression of a doddering fool: “‘It is evening, isn’t it?’ An 80-Year-Old President’s Whirlwind Trip.” Ian Millhiser of Vox nailed the problem: “I worry the ‘Biden is old’ coverage is starting to take on the same character as the 2016 But Her Emails coverage – find something that is genuinely suboptimal about the Democratic candidate and dwell on it endlessly to ‘balance’ coverage of the criminal in charge of the GOP.”

The evidence-free Biden impeachment efforts in the House of Representatives are presented to news consumers without sufficient context. In the first round of headlines last week, most news outlets simply reported what speaker Kevin McCarthy was doing as if it were completely legitimate – the result of his likely high crimes and misdemeanors. The Washington Post presented it seriously: “Kevin McCarthy directs House committees to open formal Biden impeachment inquiries,” adding in a credulous line: “The inquiry will center on whether President Biden benefited from his son’s business dealings … ” No hint of what is really happening here. In this case, the New York Times was a welcome exception: “McCarthy, Facing an Ouster and a Shutdown, Orders an Impeachment Inquiry.” That’s more like it.

Trump continues to be covered mostly as an entertaining sideshow – his mugshot! His latest insults! – not a perilous threat to democracy, despite four indictments and 91 charges against him, and despite his own clear statements that his re-election would bring extreme anti-democratic results; he would replace public servants with the cronies who’ll do his bidding. “We will look back on this and wish more people had understood that Biden is our bulwark of democratic freedoms and the alternative is worse than most Americans can imagine,” commented Ruth Ben-Ghiat, author of Strongmen, and an expert in authoritarian regimes. — The Guardian

And one more - the disgraceful attacks on electoral officers by Team Trump and the MAGA thugs. If the anti-democratic efforts of MAGA aren’t obvious enough in their continued defence of the Jan 6th outrage. Electoral officers are generally just administrators and office workers who, you would think, would be admired for their role in tending to the system of democratic governance, instead of being threatened, harassed and fired for their efforts. The story concerns one who is fighting back through a lawsuit, more strength to her.

They're not starting a party you can vote for just sending out what amounts to a commercial. It doesn't even amount to a slap in the face of Trump but I'm sure it's trending well on tiktok or whatever.

Since Biden took office the US economy has added a record 14m jobs while his list of legislative accomplishments has earned comparisons with those of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson … Trump, meanwhile, is facing 91 criminal indictments in Atlanta, Miami, New York and Washington DC, some of which relate to an attempt to overthrow the US government. — The Guardian

Regardless, Trump is leading in many polls.

It's hard to put any stock in polls when the election is still nearly a year away. Trump detractors may be clutching their pearls, and Trump supporters may be heartened by these polls... But I don't think they mean much. We'll see what effect one or more convictions may have on independent and moderate Republican voters. We know there is a hardcore MAGA base that will support Trump even if he's behind bars in an orange jumpsuit boasting about how he could kill people and still have their support... But what about the others? Will they still Trump as viable a year from now?

Regardless, Trump is leading in many polls. — Wayfarer

It is very telling of how bad the US democracy is built if Trump is sentenced and he still wins an election. The US democratic system is just a patch work of stupidity compared to other developed nations with functioning democracies. Like rolling out the red carpet for corruption and no one seems to care enough to do anything radical to change it. The delusional idea that the US system is the best things can get and that any problem is due to something else or someone else. The US needs an overhaul of it's entire system. Throw the constitution in the trash and draw up a new one with up to date ideals. If Trump gets sentenced to jail and win the election and people won't do anything other than write "how could this happen?" on their social media accounts, then that's a clear sign that the US will end up in the gutter in the long run.

This is why Socrates, as reported by Plato, feared democracy as mob rule.

"If you listen to fools, the Mob Rules." -- Black Sabbath

Winston Churchill called democracy “the worst form of government … except for all the others”.

What we're experiencing with Trump, Fox News, Newsmax, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, this whole phenomenon of alt-right, alt-facts, conspiracy theorists, demagogues, etc. is all what I would call the necessary evil of living in an open, democratic society with free speech. Yes, we run this risk that charismatic, popular demagogues can sway the masses to vote in a regime that can undermine the democratic system itself. I guess that is one way that democracies can come to an end, and we might be watching it happen. How do you reasonably debate or convince people otherwise when they willingly vote for someone who wants to suspend the Constitution -- the very document that secures their right to vote in the first place?

How do you reasonably debate or convince people otherwise when they willingly vote for someone who wants to suspend the Constitution -- the very document that secures their right to vote in the first place? — GRWelsh

By creating the replacement and working for replacing the constitution rather than removal. That way, the replacement constitution can be worked on by everyone from politicians, to philosophers, researchers and the people, and be fine tuned to include better rights and better protections than it has now, and especially get rid of the awful second amendment which is just arming idiots killing each other. If the aim is to create a peaceful and good society, then anything that arms people just creates ticking time bombs. A constitution should aim for the protection of the people, by giving them rights and tools to stand up against government injustices, but also including a removal of the means to which people can hurt each other with weapons. The only issue with taking away weapons from the people is if the state gets more power to hurt the people, which could lead to totalitarianism, so the core rights need to include variety of ways in which the people have power over the government and not just the government over the people.

On top of this, there should be a clear focus on representative democracy in the form of representatives. Reshape politics into being less about the individuals in power and more focused being the people's democratic voice. Right now, especially in the US, a president is essentially a form of king that's being elected. While not within the exact level of autocratic power, they still have more power than a democratic system should allow. On top of that we have all the emerging issues with the supreme court, with the easily corrupted congress backed up by capitalist lobbyists in every corner who skew decisions into being more about helping these capitalists instead of making good decisions for the people. And get rid of the stupid electoral system that's so overly complicated that you don't even have to be corrupted since the system itself seems to be able to skew an election into something other than the people's actual choice.

The US democracy needs a cleanup and be reshaped and simplified by looking at what worked and what didn't in the past.

Remove systems that aren't helping the speed and clarity of running the nation. Lower the focus on individuals in government and increase the focus on representative systems. Have a redundancy through independent institutions that review the seats of power and block any attempts of corruption. Produce a functioning bureaucracy that can spot irregularities in procedurs so that abuse of power gets shot down directly. Anyone who abuses his/her power or acts with corruption gets removed immediately, with no drawn out processes or trials, and when in doubt the review happens outside of the a halls of power without them able to screw the system during the process.

With a less focus on the people and individuals in power, there won't be a problem to remove them quickly and replace them. The focus would be on representing the voice of the people and work for them. With a heavier focus on using research to find solutions to problems in society, rather than making decisions based on some arbitrary delusion by a single person who marketed themselves on hyperbole simplicities to a gullible population.

The thing that stands in the way of this is the delusional idea of US hegemony, which makes people believe that the US system is perfect and in no need of a change. It's so ingrained that the people who are in most need of help from the government are the very people voting on politicians who would do nothing to help them. It's this delusion that's eating the US away, slowly killing society by fooling the people that the government exists as if chosen by God.

What we're experiencing with Trump, Fox News, Newsmax, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, this whole phenomenon of alt-right, alt-facts, conspiracy theorists, demagogues, etc. is all what I would call the necessary evil of living in an open, democratic society with free speech. — GRWelsh

It is not simply a question of democracy. There's also the economic system to consider, the state of technology, and who wields it.

The current situation is not simply the result of "free speech running it's course" but of a combination of crises.