Brasas: Nice Godwin's law... pretty fast as well huh?
Telika: Trademark superficiality in all its glory again. Make a list of exemples that shouldn't be pointed at, and trim the world of everything that doesn't match your point.
The point is, "democracy" isn't just the "majority votes" principle behind which populists love to hide. ...
Yeah, why don't you read what I PMd you from before you posted this wonderful proof of how far your perception of me and the reality of me actually are. Like the things you think we disagree over... amazing.
Edit: I'll now proceed to edit in some replies to the most blatant misunderstandings.
You conclude your rant with examples of how
public institutions such as education or media compensate for the populist ethos of democratic politics.
No disagreement on that from me, in fact you are just ignoring my fundamental point (implicit from other threads) that having those public institutions homogenized (be it by government regulatory standards or by the new social justice moral ostracism) is likewise "problematic". Put another way (warning: hyperbole incoming), you are the representative of the new tyranny of the majority, whereas I am the representative of the new represssed minority. And the thing is, unlike you, I don't think my "victim status" is determined subjectively. Objectivity as ethical principle. Get it? I think it's easy to actually, you know, measure how many people "vote" for hate speech to be illegal (who defines hate?) and how many agree it should be tolerated in order to prevent democratic abuse of power. Of course, just because I don't want "haters" to be "lynched" I'm sure you'll think me a "hater"-lover. Yes, I can also use charged rhetoric. It's easy Telika. It's very easy. It's "populist" as you so aptly put it. It appeals to the lowest denominator. But you don't see your logical inconsistency in that do you? You think your rhetoric is pure, because your intent is pure... as if every single tyrant didn't think exactly the same...
Now, you will again try to argue I lack authority because I am a privileged male or some such. Ignoring your own ideology of how the axis are orthogonal... One can be a minority "this", and a majority "that". As you should know, life is complicated. Which brings me to your initial point (with which you implicitly advocated for intolerance in the past) that I don't want to discuss racism, which is your personal bete noire. This is basically what you are saying in your first paragraph, where you shift the goalposts (again) from what could be a discussion about political process, into a discussion of political outcomes. I disagree with you on the process but I agree on the outcomes. It constantly amazes me that the disagreement on process (the ends DO NOT justify the means) is enough for you to completely ignore my repeated assertions that you're strawmanning my intent.
Or to put it more bluntly, your example of extermination had nothing to do with the argument I made. I just said equality is a democratic value, exemplified by universal suffrage. The fact that was enough to trigger a Godwin is in itself quite revealing, just like calling for universal tolerance (of speech, not of violence - because you will again purposefuly miss the point) was enough to trigger you previousy. I NEVER advocated for populist democracy, let alone for racism... it's all in your mind...
The above are my main replies. Let's proceed to highlight a few of your other pearls of "wisdom". (rather of prejudice)
You say democracy requires informed voters in a perfect display on not just anti-populism, but blatant elitism. Who defines sufficient information? Do you defend some form of suffrage limitation based on testing?
In what language would the testing happen? See how close I can get to strawman you into an anti-immigration proponent? More likely, you didn't think it through and are just being a populist demagogue, saying what sounds nice, regardless of pragmatic considerations.
You speak of witches. If 51% decide witches should be burned, it IS true that "witches" will be burned.
History proves it took much less than 51% to get the stakes going. Just because you want to focus on the fact it's false they were witches, and I want to focus on the fact they were burned and SHOULDN'T have, does not prove either of us wrong. Accept the difference of focus will you? If I get what I want it does not matter whether 90% believe them to be witches... they WON'T get burned, they will be tolerated- democratically. ;)