3 ms·

There is no such thing as "genuine views of the masses" which aren't shaped by anybody. "The masses" are made of people, all of which shape each other both at a

There is no such thing as "genuine views of the masses" which aren't shaped by anybody. "The masses" are made of people, all of which shape each other both at a micro and at a macro level, but the latter is disproportionately affected by mass communication - and, today, by digital social networks and their algorithms. Everybody has people who they look to for reference (ie, leaders) and that they trust on things which they don't know personally very well. Some leaders truly believe that you can eat your cake and have it too, and they tell their followers "trust me, and you'll have your cake and eat it too" - but usually these don't last long, because they're simply too stupid and/or ignorant. And this isn't an exclusive of the right or of the left: you have people who don't believe that carbon dioxide has a greenhouse effect, but you also have people who believe we can simply install solar panels and magically solve the mismatch between energy needs (temporal and geographical) and Sun irradiation. Some other leaders know perfectly well that you can't eat your cake and have it too, and that in reality you need to make compromises between various things you would like to have - but they tell their followers the opposite, because they only care about reaching and then maintaining power. These are the demagogues, but they ally with the people from above and, together, form populist movements. Then there are leaders who try to find the best compromise between the various things that "the masses" want/care about, and what reality allows to the best of our knowledge. Those are the non-populist, and they exist.

somenameforme 9mo ago
Well that's a rather political answer in that you're saying a lot, but avoiding the question, unless I'm expected to read into what you're saying, which can be interpreted in either way. I won't push it beyond to emphasize that I'm not picking particularly fringe arguments, as per your examples, I'm picking completely mainstream and normal rhetoric that you would hear from effectively 100% of politicians of a certain leaning. As for 'genuine views' - contemporary politics is full of endless issues that if each person, absent any awareness of where we ended up, were to rank the importance - would end up nowhere remotely near the top. An obvious example is transsexual stuff. It's also comparably full of gaslighting on issues that may benefit the country, but hurt the people. For instance low skill immigration reduces wages of low-skill workers, while simultaneously 'growing the economy.' This is something which has been studied and confirmed endlessly, yet politicians and the media will do things like misrepresent studies or cite localized studies from 46 years ago to try to implicitly, sometimes explicitly, argue that it increases wages. It's complete gaslighting. I view populism as stepping away from these sort of deceptions. Many if not most great presidents of the US in the past would certainly be derogatively framed as a populist now a days. JFK telling people we can go to the Moon if we truly focus on it, that America's resources can be spent better than trying to meddle in every single country around the world, and that a great country can only stay great if both the country works for the people but the people also work for the country? That certainly seems to fit the typical usage of the term now a days.
- danmaz74 9mo ago
  I considered that question just an example. Anyway, considering that China alone installed about 60% of the new renewable capacity in the whole world in 2024–2025, and that about 90% of new capacity is based on renewables both there and in India, I really don't see how your argument on that holds. For low skill immigration, I fundamentally agree with you, and that's something I personally criticize left wing politicians a lot. I see the stance that Western countries can (and should) accept any amount of immigration as a left-wing form of populism. Regarding JFK and the Moon, that's the opposite of populism - that's leading and shaping people's ideas and perceptions. How many Americans were thinking about going to the Moon before JFK made that an important issue?
  - somenameforme 9mo ago
    It was indeed just an example, but a pointed one to try to figure out where your definition begins and where it ends. As for China's claims, beware of capacity factor. [1] Installed capacity is based on peak figures, whereas practical output tends to be a fraction of that for clean energy sources, but significantly higher for energy like coal. It makes it easy to make headlines that sound good, but don't mean what we'd think they mean, and China's not the only one doing this. In any case, CO2 levels are going to continue skyrocketing for the foreseeable future. As for JFK - going to the Moon is something that people would somewhat naturally support. If they oppose it, it's going to be on political grounds, perhaps they think the money could be better spent in the current moment, and not because they literally just don't ever want to send people to the Moon. By contrast something like e.g. political correctness is the exact opposite. People are going to naturally oppose it, unless there is a political motivation behind supporting it. I also chose that exact example because of the comment you made about populists promising the Moon - it turns out that sometimes they deliver. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
    - danmaz74 9mo ago
      Sure, we're going to emit a lot of carbon dioxide for a long time, but we're talking about planet-level changes here, and changing the trend/trajectory has HUGE impact. At least if you care about future generations (I've got a daughter and several nephews, I don't know about you). Anyway, I asked chatgpt to estimate actual averaged capacity, and for China we have that nuclear+renewables (low-carbon) added 73% of new capacity in the last two years. I bet that the figure will become even better in the next years, as batteries and other storage methods become less expensive. Regarding the Moon, are you sure that you're not equating "populist" with "what I personally like"? To make a counterexample, what do you think about free universal medical care? Do you think that "the masses" would "naturally" want that, or not? PS By the way, I'm far from what you would probably define "woke". I actually think that the excesses of wokism were a decisive contributing factor to Trump's win.

somenameforme 9mo ago

Well that's a rather political answer in that you're saying a lot, but avoiding the question, unless I'm expected to read into what you're saying, which can be interpreted in either way. I won't push it beyond to emphasize that I'm not picking particularly fringe arguments, as per your examples, I'm picking completely mainstream and normal rhetoric that you would hear from effectively 100% of politicians of a certain leaning. As for 'genuine views' - contemporary politics is full of endless issues that if each person, absent any awareness of where we ended up, were to rank the importance - would end up nowhere remotely near the top. An obvious example is transsexual stuff. It's also comparably full of gaslighting on issues that may benefit the country, but hurt the people. For instance low skill immigration reduces wages of low-skill workers, while simultaneously 'growing the economy.' This is something which has been studied and confirmed endlessly, yet politicians and the media will do things like misrepresent studies or cite localized studies from 46 years ago to try to implicitly, sometimes explicitly, argue that it increases wages. It's complete gaslighting. I view populism as stepping away from these sort of deceptions. Many if not most great presidents of the US in the past would certainly be derogatively framed as a populist now a days. JFK telling people we can go to the Moon if we truly focus on it, that America's resources can be spent better than trying to meddle in every single country around the world, and that a great country can only stay great if both the country works for the people but the people also work for the country? That certainly seems to fit the typical usage of the term now a days.

danmaz74 9mo ago
I considered that question just an example. Anyway, considering that China alone installed about 60% of the new renewable capacity in the whole world in 2024–2025, and that about 90% of new capacity is based on renewables both there and in India, I really don't see how your argument on that holds. For low skill immigration, I fundamentally agree with you, and that's something I personally criticize left wing politicians a lot. I see the stance that Western countries can (and should) accept any amount of immigration as a left-wing form of populism. Regarding JFK and the Moon, that's the opposite of populism - that's leading and shaping people's ideas and perceptions. How many Americans were thinking about going to the Moon before JFK made that an important issue?
- somenameforme 9mo ago
  It was indeed just an example, but a pointed one to try to figure out where your definition begins and where it ends. As for China's claims, beware of capacity factor. [1] Installed capacity is based on peak figures, whereas practical output tends to be a fraction of that for clean energy sources, but significantly higher for energy like coal. It makes it easy to make headlines that sound good, but don't mean what we'd think they mean, and China's not the only one doing this. In any case, CO2 levels are going to continue skyrocketing for the foreseeable future. As for JFK - going to the Moon is something that people would somewhat naturally support. If they oppose it, it's going to be on political grounds, perhaps they think the money could be better spent in the current moment, and not because they literally just don't ever want to send people to the Moon. By contrast something like e.g. political correctness is the exact opposite. People are going to naturally oppose it, unless there is a political motivation behind supporting it. I also chose that exact example because of the comment you made about populists promising the Moon - it turns out that sometimes they deliver. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
  - danmaz74 9mo ago
    Sure, we're going to emit a lot of carbon dioxide for a long time, but we're talking about planet-level changes here, and changing the trend/trajectory has HUGE impact. At least if you care about future generations (I've got a daughter and several nephews, I don't know about you). Anyway, I asked chatgpt to estimate actual averaged capacity, and for China we have that nuclear+renewables (low-carbon) added 73% of new capacity in the last two years. I bet that the figure will become even better in the next years, as batteries and other storage methods become less expensive. Regarding the Moon, are you sure that you're not equating "populist" with "what I personally like"? To make a counterexample, what do you think about free universal medical care? Do you think that "the masses" would "naturally" want that, or not? PS By the way, I'm far from what you would probably define "woke". I actually think that the excesses of wokism were a decisive contributing factor to Trump's win.