"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

▲

matrix87 3 days ago | parent [-]

> unless by "democratic" you mean the literal Greek etymology of the word

So like, what it says in the dictionary? As in, I'm using the word as it's actually defined?

Is conveniently redefining words to fit your argument supposed to not confuse people?

Here's what it sounds like to an idiot off the street like me:

> "democracy good"

> "letting voters actually get what they want bad"

>"democracy = letting voters actually get what they want"

> a bunch of cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics... let's wave a magic wand here, "democracy = <something completely different that you need to read a couple hundred pages of Karl Popper to understand. The public need not have an opinion here, they just need to smile and nod>"

If you mean to say that democracy (i.e. the public getting what they want via electoral process) is a flawed idea, just say it. It just sounds like you're going through a bunch of bs and vague gesturing to Karl Popper to avoid saying that

	▲	popra 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	piva00 a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Here's what it sounds like to an idiot off the street like me Idiots on the streets are usually one of the main weaknesses of democracy. The idiots under a democratic society should be seen as what they are: a threat which the only way to counteract is through education, including civics. The problem with our current modern democracies is we haven't found a way to treat the threat as what it is, and focus on solving the core issue: idiocy. We try, education of societies in general is better than any point before in history but still lacking a lot, ergo your comment.