• GarbageShoot [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      231 year ago

      I think it’s probably better to simply say that “authoritarian” is a buzzword, though your implied argument that all states work by exerting authority on (at least some portion of) their population is certainly true. Anyone who uses a term like “authoritarian” rather than even a marginally more-descriptive negative term like, idk, “bureaucratic” or “state capitalist” (which gets misused, but I digress) is immediately demonstrating themselves to have untrustworthy judgement on the topic

      • IzyaKatzmann [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        maybe bring back totalitarian and use it against countries like the US? have a word that, like Huey P. Newton said regarding coining the term ‘pig’ for police, “highlights the contradiction”, in this case, between the selective usage of a word and it’s inherent meaning, none of which is understandable without contradictions from a prescriptive linguistic context

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          You are probably right, I was really just trying to talk about how, as it currently stands, the people who use the term are basically just expressing either that they fell for a thought-terminating cliche or are expecting their audience to fall for it.

    • @Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      11
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Authoritarianism was a bullshit term invented by child-fucker libertarians to frame themselves as being the good guys.

        • the state maintains that this is a moral and legitimate use of force: that it has the authority to do this.

          I don’t necessarily agree with “moral”. In western democracies laws and use of force doesn’t legitimize itself by a call to morality usually. Just using some kind of authority, doesn’t make a government authoritarian by any common definition of the word.

            • It absolutely does imo, it legitimises itself through an appeal to an underlying moral framework.

              Yes, but very indirectly. We don’t have a “moral police”, but one that enforces laws which are, as you say, legitimized by the people as a sovereign.

              So you don’t see police stopping people on “moral grounds” in some vague interpretation.

              • FeminalPanda
                link
                fedilink
                41 year ago

                What about abortion? Tracking if women are pregnant and hunting them down if then stop being pregnant.

                • Usually codified by lawy not prosecuted as “immoral behaviour” as such. Although if you look at recent anti-abortion legislation in the US it is intentionally vague. That shifts some burden of interpretation to the executive branch and is a sign of authoritarianism I’d say.