Are we now going to disregard anything that can't be properly defined in 10 words or less because otherwise it just sounds funny to "idiots off the streets"? I guess the two paragraphs on wikipedia are too elitist for the idiocracy yall seem to yearn for.
Imagine those idiot doctors going through all those years of medical school instead of just buying a dictionary. LMAO what a bunch of losers.
Nice try building ttat straw man, but if your choice is an anti-democratic one—as is often the case with populists (read the fxcking paper)—then by definition you’re dismantling democracy, not practicing it. Deal with it.
"which they aren't" ... OK, you seem oddly confused about what's actually being discussed.
Let me help: here's a passage from the paper itself "On one hand, some scholars argue that populism is inherently illiberal [...]. Populist movements embrace majoritarian politics and seek to suppress opposition, often through a charismatic strongman who pledges to dismantle institutional constraints in the name of executing the people’s will. Under this interpretation, populism becomes synonymous with authoritarianism."
So while you clearly don't perceive populism as anti-democratic ... because you're immune to "doublethink", or something — others, including some of the people actually cited in the paper clearly do. Also, famously: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/abs/po...
And oh BTW, no. The majority choice is not automatically a priori democratic, unless by "democratic" you mean the literal Greek etymology of the word and not its actual meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy
So given the "consensus" that "genes have a significant influence on differences in human behaviour, interests, capabilities etc.", you're basically saying that a significant and spontaneous, yet undetected, mutation appeared in the human female population, during the '80s [1] ?
"[...] the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy."
This is a dubious claim to say the least. There was little to no pro gay rights or gender equality activism in the traditionally very conservative little corner of the Earth where I live (ex communist, eastern European country). However, coinciding with the recent rise of the alt-right, we've had a sudden surge of anti-gay rhetoric packaged along with strong anti-establishment speech - this seems conspicuously similar to the ultra-conservative speech (both Russian and American) attacking liberals. To the point where the governing, majority, LEFT party initiated a referendum for changing the constitution to define the "Family" as the result of the marriage between a man and a woman. Interestingly, the referendum is supported by most (I think all) political parties and a vast majority of people. The "Marxist warfare against the white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy" doesn't and didn't exist here, yet we have the same alt-right crap being used by the governing party to "feed" the masses, distract from their image of a deeply corrupt party and thus grab more power. Similar things are probably going on in other places, the "Marxist threat" is mostly a boogie man used for a plain old power grab.
Genuine question: I've never understood the non zero sum game idea in the context of economic inequality. If I win more than you lose, overall it's a non zero sum game, as in, our combined gaines are greater than before (the pie is larger), but you still lose(you get a smaller piece). Would someone be interested in highlighting some counter arguments to this?
Haven't read the full paper but is seems to suggest that returns on capital investments are declining because of consolidations.
Companies in dominant positions make huge profits(compared to the rest of the players), while those that are not in dominant positions make far less profit - but on average the returns on investment are on the decline. Furthermore the huge profits deincentivise risk taking for the dominants, hence they invest less.
But not being an economist, I may be way off.
What about those who don't have funds to begin with, hence can't pay for adequate legal representation and have to take a plea bargain. Would you say those don't have basic human rights to begin with?
You're assuming "outside influence" is the same thing as "different views". For example, in information ops you only have to use sensemaking on a target (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking) to feed little bits of info or ideas that favor your goal. The end result is that the target feels protected from outside influence but it's anything but.
I like to think of myself as technically minded. However, your stereotype of technically minded people seems to sugest that either I accept the "natural truth" of stereotype accuracy or forfeit my technically minded view of myself. I will do neither.
The claim that one can engage in stereotyping people while exibiting fair threatment of the same people as individuals is dubious to say the least given the definition of stereotyping.
Once engaged in stereotyping no amount of post factum fair threatment of the individual will make up for the unfairness.
Later edit:
People are imperfect pattern recognisers, in fact our pattern recognition generates a significant amount of false positives. From an evolutionary perspective this was acceptable at a time when tigers could be lurking in the bush. The penalty for running from an imaginary tiger in the bush is insignifiant compared to the penalty of not running from an undetected tiger.
Which shouldn't be surprising, because unless carefully expressed, skepticism towards the stereotype threat effect can be interpreted as a justification for stereotyping, especially when the skepticism is expressed in the context of political tenets.
I can now reply to your comment here, so I will reply again :)
You say that reality tends to punish irrational practices which means that some escape this punishment. Hence I will conclude that with time irrational business practices accumulate in the free market.
I can't reply to your last comment below so I'll reply here.
To me it seems that you are using some game theory ideas to explain how markets behave. The problem is that you forget to incorporate concepts from the "reality" you speak of in the last reply - more precisely timespace.
If you incorporate timespace, the enounciation becomes "the probability of the market punishing dumpers increases with time and becomes certainty after an infinit milenia have passed"
You're just arguing that dumping can be fought with dumping and hence it's not rational for economic agents to engage in dumping. When did a rational argument stop the market from doing something?
Imagine those idiot doctors going through all those years of medical school instead of just buying a dictionary. LMAO what a bunch of losers.
Nice try building ttat straw man, but if your choice is an anti-democratic one—as is often the case with populists (read the fxcking paper)—then by definition you’re dismantling democracy, not practicing it. Deal with it.