Opinion of the phrase "The People"

[The Mikado]

Pretty much always highly negative.  Is there a more harmful abstraction?  There are no people in The People, it's just a claim to legitimacy for your platform based on popular support that doesn't actually exist.  There is no such thing as "The People" or "The Masses," there's a highly complex multitude of individuals with their own interests, needs, cares, and opinions, and they do not speak with a unified voice.  The People, United, Can Never Exist.  A group of people can rally behind a common agenda, but The People cannot because there are always people that disagree quite vehemently with that agenda.  Hearing "The People support the agenda of X" or "The People have spoken" are like nails on a chalkboard to me because they are the most obvious lie any political activist has ever spoken.

This has been my rant for the day.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At least you called it a rant and not a smackdown, because otherwise The People's Champion would have to stick it up your candy ass, if you can smell what is cooking!

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

It is the tendency of the reactionary, the cynical, and the weak-minded to focus on the details and differences between individuals, and the slope from this semantic argument to the Great Man nonsense that dominates liberal political thought is quite slippery.

[Deus Naturae]

It is the tendency of the reactionary, the cynical, and the weak-minded to focus on the details and differences between individuals, and the slope from this semantic argument to the Great Man nonsense that dominates liberal political thought is quite slippery.

Yeah, only weak-minded idiots might want to consider that different people have different desires, preferences, and needs. We're all just indistinguishable units of the collective "People" (the common characteristics of which ought to be determined by strong-minded visionaries such as yourself) and any attempt to focus on "details" that might suggest differences between individuals is just semantic nonsense.

[Simfan34]

In an Atlasian context: Freedom phrase

In a non-Atlasian context: ick

[Redalgo]

The phrase is a social construct with a purpose as are all others. Sometimes when talking it is more useful to discuss individuals, and sometimes it suffices to refer to the group as a whole. It is splendid when used as a metaphor or linguistic shortcut for conveying a complex idea in a practical, succinct way others will grasp if it is placed in the proper context. There is also an important distinction to make separating different kinds of claims about the will of the masses - as some people talk about it in terms of projecting personal opinion (X is in the interests of the People = I believe X is in the best interests of all individuals), some as statements of fact (X is in the interests of the People = I believe X is what most if not all people know to be in their interests), and so forth. Phrases are tools. It is up to each of us not to misuse them.

[AggregateDemand]

Pretty much always highly negative.  Is there a more harmful abstraction?  There are no people in The People, it's just a claim to legitimacy for your platform based on popular support that doesn't actually exist.  There is no such thing as "The People" or "The Masses," there's a highly complex multitude of individuals with their own interests, needs, cares, and opinions, and they do not speak with a unified voice.  The People, United, Can Never Exist.  A group of people can rally behind a common agenda, but The People cannot because there are always people that disagree quite vehemently with that agenda.  Hearing "The People support the agenda of X" or "The People have spoken" are like nails on a chalkboard to me because they are the most obvious lie any political activist has ever spoken.

This has been my rant for the day.

Democrats are just lazy libertarians who won't admit they covet money.

[Redalgo]

Democrats are just lazy libertarians who want admit they covet money.

Would the equivalent for trolling the other side of the aisle be, "Republicans are just insecure libertarians who won't admit they need tradition as a safety blanket," by chance? xD

[The Mikado]

It is the tendency of the reactionary, the cynical, and the weak-minded to focus on the details and differences between individuals, and the slope from this semantic argument to the Great Man nonsense that dominates liberal political thought is quite slippery.

Is it semantic to point out that claiming "The People demand justice" or whatever it is you're saying is an absurd lie because it implies popular acclamation for your position that doesn't exist?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Debates like political ones are full of empty signs whose signifiers float in the ether around it pinpointed differently by each person depending, often, where they wish it was. It may be empty, but it is certainly isn't meaningless, people wouldn't use it otherwise.

While 'The people' is annoying I feel it is less abused than it used to be. To my mind, the use of 'nature/natural' is far more pernicious

[AggregateDemand]

Would the equivalent for trolling the other side of the aisle be, "Republicans are just insecure libertarians who won't admit they need tradition as a safety blanket," by chance? xD

Don't most Republicans admit they need the security of traditions? Seems like one of the pillars of the conservative wing.

If you follow my template: Aren't most Republicans just a bunch of Social Security and Medicare moochers who won't admit they love being lazy and socialist? According to the last election, yes.

Technically, this should allow Democrats to dispatch Republicans as easily as Republicans dispatched Democrats. However, Democrats do love playing the victim card so we'll see how long they let themselves wallow in self-pity before they modernize. I think Mikado is rapidly approaching the bargaining phase. That's a good sign so soon after the election.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

It is the tendency of the reactionary, the cynical, and the weak-minded to focus on the details and differences between individuals, and the slope from this semantic argument to the Great Man nonsense that dominates liberal political thought is quite slippery.

Is it semantic to point out that claiming "The People demand justice" or whatever it is you're saying is an absurd lie because it implies popular acclamation for your position that doesn't exist?

If your position lacks popular support, then perhaps you could call it in that instance a lie (though I would ascribe the continued existence of injustice to the dominance of false consciousness, among other factors).

[Person Man]

Pretty much always highly negative.  Is there a more harmful abstraction?  There are no people in The People, it's just a claim to legitimacy for your platform based on popular support that doesn't actually exist.  There is no such thing as "The People" or "The Masses," there's a highly complex multitude of individuals with their own interests, needs, cares, and opinions, and they do not speak with a unified voice.  The People, United, Can Never Exist.  A group of people can rally behind a common agenda, but The People cannot because there are always people that disagree quite vehemently with that agenda.  Hearing "The People support the agenda of X" or "The People have spoken" are like nails on a chalkboard to me because they are the most obvious lie any political activist has ever spoken.

This has been my rant for the day.

Pretty much.