Way to jump the shark my good man.
I suppose i shall respond. I'm not sure why i have dragged myself into a political arguement on a videogame forumn but i now feel obliged to respond. At least what i am going to mention will be rather relevent given my quite litterally medieval political tendancies. Or at least early modern. I suppose it is relevent, it just feels kind of wierd.
idk how you came to that conclusion, but you're thoroughly wrong. In the past ppl used to respect and listen to specialists, professionals and those who honed a craft.
First of all i think that you didn't quite understand what i was saying. Possibly because it came completely out of left field in terms of the modern intellectual paradime.
What i was doing was linking the notion of the mass media, mass state, consumerism ect. to the assumptions of the enlightenment and the revolutions. Which in my opinion are one of the main roots of many of our modern woes among other things. I am certainly not going to go on a tirade about oswald spengler that is for sure. Mainly the advent of democracy or that of egalitarianism.
To be clear i was not bemoaning the current "populist" tendancies, which i regard as reasonable for the most part, even if i myself do not subscribe to such a thing as i come from a high tory perspective.
If the people are soveriegn. For such a thing i shall use the schmittian definition which i find most useful, despite the oft used attempts to smear by assossation. Which would be a shame given the quality of his legal scollarship and to throw away schmitt would also to throw away Clausewitz, Machiavelli and other exetremely important modern thinkers given that schmitts work in many ways is simply the logical continueation of these thoughs. For needless clarity more than any particular obsession with the minuture of the defintion, most definitions of the word would work so i have just chosen the best one. He who is soverign is he who makes the exeption, given the absurdity of any absolute monopoly on violence as reality doesn't conform to such idealistic conceptions.
If the people make the exeption, forgeting any issues with notions of the "common good" and the notion of the "people" let alone the imposibillity of having a society without an elite I am just writing on the justifications for actions. Then it doesn't seem unreasonable for the people to have to be informed in making said ruling decisions. And they are also responsible for such a thing.
As such it doesn't seem unreasonable to create a system wereby the people are informed by "experts" on such subjects. And as such it is important for them to defer such opinions effectively to these "experts" whomever they are.
But the people are still in charge, as they should be naturally, so they have to make their positions on said issues known. Exercise their rights and obligations as sovergien.
Which in actually is just parroting whatever someone has told them to think and do it publicly and invasively. As opposed to quite submission to ones rulers everyone from the lowest and highest has to boldly proclaim their loyalty to complete and utter absurdities that are put before you.
NUANCE BE DAMNED!
What you now have is an oligarchy or rhetoric.
In the old system the opinions of the masses would still be controlled but the legitamacy and power of the regime was not in fact bound to any sort of popular support. So opinions that were not usual were an outright threat to the base of the regime were generally tollerated. If you didn't believe for the most part you could sit down and shut up. Now you have to hang up your "workers of the world unite" sign or modern western equivolent (please don't smite me for mocking the current thing) so as to not be crushed or to get any power or legitamacy.
Now it's everyone's job to argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Not just the theologians.
So no, to have everyone defend the acceptable position is not new. It is a logical continueation of the power structure and ideology of revolutionary government. At least such a thing on this mass scale.
And it has been this way for your entire life i would bet and certainly my entire life, unless you are several hundred years old that is.
The progression of workers rights to racial rights to womens rights to homosexual rights to transexual rights are a mostly linear porgression of egalitarian logic and purity spiraling. Lying for a "good cause" didn't just happen yesterday. Nor was brazen ideological historical revisionism. Funny how history has a direction and it is always the so called "good guys" winning. Funny that the "good guys" have investigated this and found no evidence of any wrong doing by the "good guys". And that even questioning the "good guys" is a sign that you obviously are not a "good guy".
This societal IQ drop only really happened after the internet picked-up pace with google and endless pages of misinformation started to fill the mainstream of the search engines.
As far as i know Flynn effect is an illusion. There was no precipitous lowering of intelligence. All throughout the time when it was observed other correlates of G were going down like reaction time for example. Suggesting that people were reaching their phenotypic maximum despite the selection for intellegence in the population being negative in industrialised society. Which was not the case in pre-industrial even pre-enlightenment conditions where child mortality was much higher but lower for the higher classes. Social class is highley correlated with IQ as such one would expect this to be indicative of a strong selection for intellegence in said population. Caused by a better access to reasources, including food, shelter, safety even early inoculation which was picked up by the upperclasses first.
This may be of interest also.
I would actually contend that wokesters have slightly above average intellegence. Being clever enough to figure out how to show their intellegence by slightly challenging the current paradime without rocking the boat too much.
In history, there was never anything like this on this scale.
Did you forget the thing that almost everyone seems celebrate like its a good thing but was infact a totalitarian nightmare that was subsumed by a effective yet despotic millitary commander.
Learn some history of the french revolution. Of the mass terror in the capital. The storming of the bastille, where the garrison was slaughtered under false pretences and the violent criminals released into the streets. The civil war brought on by mass conscription and the appointment of constitutional priests. The blatantly horrific acts perpetraited by the french revolutionary Army in the countryside for example in the vendee were they butchered the rebels in the countride, calling them brigands drowning them to save on bullets and r***ng the women before they drowned them. All of this came from revolutionary sources mind you, they openly boasted about bringing freedom to the region after helping to kill of about 1 in seven people and conscripting the survivors.
All this mind you is actively praised by most of the regimes around the world, as they are logical continuations of the prior revolution. All of the 20th century horrors were perpetrated by revolutionary regimes. Be it the Americans or the british with Fabian style socialism, the national socialists and the fascists with their more reactionary nationalist form of revolution or the comminturn with soviet style communism.
In the west we now have the hipest form of it. But it is still weak or has made major mistakes and is now. As such people can still see it exists as opposed to sitting quitely in the background as assumed wisdom.
1789 was a disaster for mankind. Back to fuedalism. Back to some real artisanship.