[rdm_blackhole]

> Some people mainly come to political positions for emotional reasons rather than substantive ones

As opposed to your positions. The masses, well, they think wrong, but you, you thought long and hard about everything and you came to the right conclusions.

What's next? Give the right to vote only to the "right" people?

After all, if you can't trust the judgment of the masses because their views are based mainly on emotional reasons then surely you don't think they should have a say in how their country should be run?

[mtsr]

I realize very well the problems of following this line of thought. But clearly populism combined with propaganda isn’t working out either in a number of countries. Should we just stop thinking about causes and what could be done about it, because it’s uncomfortable to think about it?

[rdm_blackhole]

This is not an ad-hominem attack.

You are presenting an argument and I am pointing out the flaws in it.

I am also presenting the logical conclusion of your argument that maybe you were not comfortable making in your original comment, that is that a certain part of the population is not capable of thinking rationally and therefore, someone else must decide what they should be able to see, hear and read because otherwise they may make the "wrong" choices.

That, in turn implies that their votes could be also swayed by emotional reasons, so if you think that these people are not capable of making up their own mind about the issues that we face today, then surely, you are not fine with having them express their opinion in the voting booth.

> But clearly populism combined with propaganda isn’t working out either in a number of countries.

So your solution to populism is to refrain the population from accessing views that you find problematic?

> I realize very well the problems of following this line of thought

I don't think you do because if you did then you would know that having the state decide what citizens should have the right to see or hear is exactly the same kind of rhetoric that authoritarian regimes use today.

> Should we just stop thinking about causes and what could be done about it, because it’s uncomfortable to think about it?

I don't think anyone is feeling uncomfortable looking at the many issues that the western democracies are facing today.

I am uncomfortable however when someone thinks that the solution to these problems is to go down the path of censorship because sooner or later someone will use the same excuse to start censoring political opponents/ so-called undesirable views in the name of saving democracies or protecting the children or fighting terrorism as it has been seen time and time again.

The solution to the views that you find problematic such as the ones expressed on RT is not found in the reduction of free speech, it is done through education and demonstration of the facts.

[generic92034]

So, if democracy means you have to trust people to make up their mind and decide for themselves, unconditionally, then why is there hardly any system with even elements of direct democracy (in contrast to the parliamentary/representative approach)?