Huge Win for Biden Today

[Cultellus]

You seem unhappy. I'm sorry you feel this way. But let's be clear. Noting adopting populism is to be radicalized into extremism isn't a personal attack. It's been much debated and supported in the thread. You may not like that but such debate is what the board exists to facilitate.

The sole defining characteristic of populism as a thin centered ideology is the division of corrupt elites from the people, who are good. You've presented this very ideas and framework in the thread multiple times while denying their significance. But that's extremism. There is no room for gray between elite and the people. The line is hard and bright.

Why don't you stop trying to judge what I seem to be or not to be. I am not unhappy. I don't believe you can be sorry for something that is not true. You did not note that adopting populism is to be radicalized into extremism, you said that I was threatening violence. And, here, again, you misrepresent what is actually said in a conversation. What has been supported is that you have not shown that all forms of populism are extreme. I am fine with debate, as you can see. And I am fine pointing out where you make assumptions and accusations that are unfounded. Your argument seems to be founded on, or grounded in, unsubstantiated assumptions or just plain ol' garbage.

Mudde and Kaltwasser attempt to create a basis for further research. They do not have a sole defining characteristic. Even if they think they do, or attempt to provide the sole definition, they didn't achieve that purpose. Your conclusions fail to acknowledge that populism and populist leaders (who are often elite by many definitions) seek to reassert the redemptive face of democracy. They try to put certain topics on the public agenda that, either intentionally or unintentionally, are not being considered by the elites. While Mudde and Kaltwasser may use the term corrupt, you have obviously noticed by now that they exclusively use it in quotes. "Corrupt," and "corrupt elites." Their work began before the turn of the century. They have not published an empirical definition of populism. Their work was focused on Latin America and Europe, initially. More contemporary work has been done regarding the United States. Their working papers from 2011 do not describe violence. They reference extremism only to describe other ideologies, including left and right examples. They do not use "extreme" or "violent" to describe all forms or examples of populism.

I think you are more focused on me than actual research or actual facts. If you want to continue to discuss populism, have a great time. Doing so in the context of your imaginary, inflammatory and fictional interpretations of what I am, or of what I feel, or of what I am experiencing is just you having a moment and not very entertaining for me.

[canpakes]

Honor, what do US populists want, in your opinion?

ETA: How does populism define who ‘the elites’ are?

Populism is extremely poorly defined as an ideology. It lacks an Adam Smith, James Madison, or Karl Marx. Noam Chompsky rejected the use of the label as not applicable to class struggle taking place in the U.S. Sociology had debates if it is even a thing given the loose use of the term could, theoretically, make it apply to anyone or anything when used carelessly. In the early 2010s, Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser published a short attempt to consolidate the term into a consistent definition that captured it's meaning and use while being functional and allowing for study. That being the definition I use in the thread that it is limited to being an approach of dividing people into two non-overlapping groups of the corrupted elite and the good people. It then gets attached to more robust ideologies such as socialism.

When you ask what populists want this is the challenge sociologists and political scientists are faced with by the term. Inevitably the easy answers don't come from the populist inflection but instead the host ideology the populist has adopted. Cultellus did that very thing himself in this thread by adopting the aims of socialism as the motivation of his ideological views even while expressing disgust towards socialism. That does leave the door open for nationalism but why set fire to the thread before we made it at least this far, right?

Right, with the demand for ‘wage and wealth parity’. What exactly does ‘parity’ mean, and what is the basis for comparison?

Populism, detached from the host ideology, functions as a strategic tool. It incites and inflames as it makes the divide in society more stark and proceeds to torque on this division. Conservatives used it to manipulate people citing liberal elites as the enemy for their go to move over the last few decades. Folks like cultellus revolt against their Republican handlers, not because they discovered the manipulation, but because the manipulation never bore fruit.

Oversimplified, it does seem to be merely function as the box or wrapper in which to present what someone wants. The wanted item is wrapped up in the guise of being what ‘the people’ or the majority want, which oftentimes seems to be a questionable assertion, but designed to assert legitimacy and primacy over competing interests.

It seems that what populism, detached, wants is control. It is used to instill a belief that the spiralling complex world outside of ones control can be brought back to heel if we could just stop those damned elites from...whatever the ideology of choice has leveraged.

Choosing to be a populist by name and label, expressing the core of the inflection as binary divide, is to be radicalized. The world is really simple, the boogie man has a name and faces, the leader knows the way, the people are too good to be foiled for long...

By example, the fellow arguing against you in this thread seems to seek control of the narrative (here as well as other threads) by claim rather than by argument or action, along with using a bad metaphor comparing his supposed ideological opponents as Holocaust Deniers. Very convenient.

I’d like to know who these supposed elites are, and how they’re defined as elites. Ideology? Occupation? Level of wealth?

There’s a bit of work to be done there, but I’m not sure that the so-called populists want to trade in their easy, broad anger for more practical examinations of their desires. Call me skeptical.

[honorentheos]

I think you are more focused on me than actual research or actual facts. If you want to continue to discuss populism, have a great time. Doing so in the context of your imaginary, inflammatory and fictional interpretations of what I am, or of what I feel, or of what I am experiencing is just you having a moment and not very entertaining for me.

I see it being quite the opposite. I'm talking about populism without concern for any given individual. Yet from the first mention of it in the thread back on page 3 you seem to take it quite personally. 16 pages worth of personal. Noting the extremism inherent in it has been a general comment from before you engaged. The noting the veiled threats of violence as specific aspects of your posts is really the only uniquely "cultellus" mention. I used your response when asked about what you are FOR to illustrate populism lacking positive aims but instead globbing onto other ideologies to fill that need. And most recently pointed out your disdain for socialism in combination good with th one aim pulled out of you with some effort suggests the thick centered ideology you had attached your populist identity to would have to be nationalism. Socialism would be a better fit but hey, you have your core, conflicted beliefs so there's only so many places to land that check the boxes.

[canpakes]

The point is, I was making crap up, just like you are making crap up. The difference is, I was being ridiculously absurd, LOL , while you are pretending to be scholarly and google research expert and you are totally serious when you lie about the things I say and think.

Populism!

The good common folk calling the evil, lying educated elite a Holocaust Denier, just for fun. Ha ha!

Gotta whip up the good common folk with rage BS, instead of solid logic or argument, I guess.

[Chap]

The good common folk calling the evil, lying educated elite a Holocaust Denier, just for fun. Ha ha!

I have not followed this thread in detail, but this bit sounds truly strange.

The claim, I gather, is that Cultellus called another poster a Holocaust Denier, either in so many words or by claiming that they had effectively denied that about 6 million members of the various Jewish communities in Europe were murdered by German government order during World War II.

May I ask what (if anything) was actually said, and to whom? And was this just a random 'dead cat' distraction, or what?

[Xenophon]

May I ask what (if anything) was actually said, and to whom? And was this just a random 'dead cat' distraction, or what?

He is just directly calling them Holocaust deniers. If I'm reading him right he is generally using on folks who he believes are attributing positions to him that he doesn't hold. A "tit for tat" kind of response with a heavy dose of escalation. Perhaps he'll confirm.

[canpakes]

The good common folk calling the evil, lying educated elite a Holocaust Denier, just for fun. Ha ha!

I have not followed this thread in detail, but this bit sounds truly strange.

The claim, I gather, is that Cultellus called another poster a Holocaust Denier, either in so many words or by claiming that they had effectively denied that about 6 million members of the various Jewish communities in Europe were murdered by German government order during World War II.

May I ask what (if anything) was actually said, and to whom? And was this just a random 'dead cat' distraction, or what?

It might be better to quote the full paragraph:

You would do well to understand what you think, and answer questions based on what you think, without making crap up about other people. I tried to make this point to you in a lot of different ways. I called you a holocaust denier, just because I made it up and because frankly, you had never said that you were not a holocaust denier. The point is, I was making crap up, just like you are making crap up. The difference is, I was being ridiculously absurd, LOL , while you are pretending to be scholarly and google research expert and you are totally serious when you lie about the things I say and think.

The totally-not-serious claim about a totally serious event has been used a few dozen times as of late by our good man Cultellus. It’s all just good fun.

[honorentheos]

May I ask what (if anything) was actually said, and to whom? And was this just a random 'dead cat' distraction, or what?

He is just directly calling them Holocaust deniers. If I'm reading him right he is generally using on folks who he believes are attributing positions to him that he doesn't hold. A "tit for tat" kind of response with a heavy dose of escalation. Perhaps he'll confirm.

He just started calling people Holocaust Deniers as an attempt to get a rise. His first mention of it to me was in Schmo's comedy thread and he had not been mentioned. His first use of it in this thread was also unprovoked.

So I think it's more accurate to say he started doing it when he disagreed with something someone posted. The common denominator is he seemed to be on a Sunday morning crusade protecting conservatism's virtue more so than focusing only on posts directed at him.

Doesn't matter. When one lacks substance one has to fill the void with something.

[Xenophon]

Fair enough, I definitely haven't seen every use of it.

Doesn't matter if the response is any good, just as long as you say something, right?

[Chap]

Thanks for the explanations folks.

So when he needs to be satirical, he does it by referring to the murder of millions, 'cos I mean that's really the kind of thing to help a guy get a belly-laugh.




I think Cultellus can stay on ignore.