It’s not the first time I hear this kind of statement, and I still don’t know how I feel about it. Maybe it’s true, realistically speaking. But it’s also an adm

It’s not the first time I hear this kind of statement, and I still don’t know how I feel about it. Maybe it’s true, realistically speaking. But it’s also an admission that we can’t be better than this, and that very much tastes like defeat, like reading post-Trump Scott Adams. (Not to be confused with the idea that it “validates” emotional manipulation or whatever; that one’s externally motivated, while this one is internal.) It also, of course, contains the kind of implicit contempt for the public that has led to widespread disdain of politicians in the first place, because while many people may be easily swept along by appeals to emotion, they still usually have a good feeling for when the speaker doesn’t respect them. I don’t know if anyone’s really trying to figure out what it would take to make these tactics not work on a large scale, rather than how to use or work around them. See also: “Guided by the beauty of our weapons”[1] by Scott Alexander. Compare: Paul Graham’s statement[2] that “Java's designers were consciously designing a product for people not as smart as them.” [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-o... [2] http://www.paulgraham.com/javacover.html http://www.paulgraham.com/javacover.html