Eh, I think there’s a decent amount of intellectual overlap between authoritarian right wingers and authoritarian left wingers. They will both prioritize state control over people.
You messed up the “don’t use variations of the word” step.
What do you mean by
“Established authorities” and
“conventionalism”?
How does a “high degree” of submission look different from a “low degree”?
What constitutes “aggressive” defence in relation to regular defence and why is it definitionally authoritarian to defend something “aggressively”?
I don’t think you understand the word totalitarian or it’s variations. You probably understand authoritarianism, but you have a vested interest in not understanding it.
Try doing some reading, authoritarian personality is well studied.
Hey, here’s a textbook example of the second bullet point I listed above: aggressive defense of what are considered the established authorities.
I provided reading on the psychological profile of an authoritarian individual, whether they be followers or leaders. Cow here immediately jumped in with an essay critiquing Arendt, who is neither here nor there. Matter of fact, Altemeyer focuses on Canadian and American authoritarians, because he was a Canadian psychologist. I don’t think he even mentions the Soviet union once in his book.
I don’t know if cow here even took the time to understand that I was talking about individual psychology before defending the state. Aggressive defense of established authority.
“Aggressive defense?” I linked an article questioning the very concept of “totalitarianism,” and said that much of the critique could be applied to the idea of “authoritarianism.” Did you read the article? The point isn’t the Soviet Union, the point is the very concept of “authoritarianism” and what that does or does not mean.
Alright so “agressive defence of established authorities” includes providing literature to understand the concept youre discussing? How is this agressive and what established authority is being defended? The general concept of “the state”?
If “providing reading material to further understanding” in any context related to the mere concept of “the state” is enough, then by your own definition you are an authoritarian.
No, I understand it, which is why I am asking you to define it. Because any actual definition is one that is either so broad as to describe all states (like yours does) or so specific as to be redundant because one could just say the name of the specific state or institution one was thinking of.
Lemmy.mlis more broadly federated than piefed.social, which also has a head developer that made lists of leftists to permaban. Being a communist on the English-speaking internet is already a dissenting view, we cannot escape non-communist viewpoints like non-communists can. Thus, echo-chambers to actually exist must affirm widespread positions while shutting out any dissent, which in the west means liberalism.
I guess it can be true for many people but i heartly disagree that it’s all people, for example I don’t belive to be in a eco-chamber, i interact with all sort of peope which half is prolly socialist people but the other half is all sort of ideologies (especially conservative and border-line fascist ones)
Can you view, say, Hexbear.net or Lemmygrad.ml from your instance? You may get some subsection of socialists but not all that exist on Lemmy if your instance blocks them.
Yeah i can see both of 'em, or well, i can search them and view users so i think my admins did not defederate; do you know any tool i can use to see if my admins defederated?
Nah, i just thought it was funny that you followed exactly the type of stereotypes about the instance you are on
To be clear: i was on .ml too once, i just moved after that because people were de-federating from it and i wanted to use a more local instance (feddit.it is Italian and i am Italian)
I, too, like to dismiss people based on my preconceived notions of their character rather than what they write, and then crawl back into my hole like a snivelling little coward when i am called out
Oh noooo did I treat you like you treated me? Oh nooooo, you’re just a widdle smol bean poor widdle you how could anyone ever be mean to you? And completely out of nowhere!
Eh, I think there’s a decent amount of intellectual overlap between authoritarian right wingers and authoritarian left wingers. They will both prioritize state control over people.
Define “authoritarian” without using variations of the word or variations of “totalitarian”.
Three criteria:
You messed up the “don’t use variations of the word” step.
What do you mean by
“Established authorities” and
“conventionalism”?
How does a “high degree” of submission look different from a “low degree”?
What constitutes “aggressive” defence in relation to regular defence and why is it definitionally authoritarian to defend something “aggressively”?
I don’t think you understand the word totalitarian or it’s variations. You probably understand authoritarianism, but you have a vested interest in not understanding it.
Try doing some reading, authoritarian personality is well studied.
theauthoritarians.org
As a counter, I think you should consider reading Towards a Critique of the Category of “Totalitarianism.” Losurdo touches on much of the problems with theories of “authoritarianism” and “totalitarianism.”
Interesting read, thanks.
@BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml
Hey, here’s a textbook example of the second bullet point I listed above: aggressive defense of what are considered the established authorities.
I provided reading on the psychological profile of an authoritarian individual, whether they be followers or leaders. Cow here immediately jumped in with an essay critiquing Arendt, who is neither here nor there. Matter of fact, Altemeyer focuses on Canadian and American authoritarians, because he was a Canadian psychologist. I don’t think he even mentions the Soviet union once in his book.
I don’t know if cow here even took the time to understand that I was talking about individual psychology before defending the state. Aggressive defense of established authority.
“Aggressive defense?” I linked an article questioning the very concept of “totalitarianism,” and said that much of the critique could be applied to the idea of “authoritarianism.” Did you read the article? The point isn’t the Soviet Union, the point is the very concept of “authoritarianism” and what that does or does not mean.
Correct. You linked a critique of the use of the word “authoritarianism” in the context of states.
Except you did that in response to authoritarianism being used in the context of an individual personality trait.
See why I consider you a statist authoritarian? You defend state power out of context.
Alright so “agressive defence of established authorities” includes providing literature to understand the concept youre discussing? How is this agressive and what established authority is being defended? The general concept of “the state”?
If “providing reading material to further understanding” in any context related to the mere concept of “the state” is enough, then by your own definition you are an authoritarian.
No, I understand it, which is why I am asking you to define it. Because any actual definition is one that is either so broad as to describe all states (like yours does) or so specific as to be redundant because one could just say the name of the specific state or institution one was thinking of.
This. I was going to ask if MAGA are dangerous.
Information bubbles are dangerous. Tribalism is dangerous.
The antidotes are inclusivity and critical thinking
Right, and you’re definitely not in any sort of echo chamber.
“This surely can’t be…” i though while clicking on your profile
“...@lemmy.ml”
Welp, name checks out ig, i didn’t realize it was a troll
Lemmy.ml is more broadly federated than piefed.social, which also has a head developer that made lists of leftists to permaban. Being a communist on the English-speaking internet is already a dissenting view, we cannot escape non-communist viewpoints like non-communists can. Thus, echo-chambers to actually exist must affirm widespread positions while shutting out any dissent, which in the west means liberalism.
I guess it can be true for many people but i heartly disagree that it’s all people, for example I don’t belive to be in a eco-chamber, i interact with all sort of peope which half is prolly socialist people but the other half is all sort of ideologies (especially conservative and border-line fascist ones)
Can you view, say, Hexbear.net or Lemmygrad.ml from your instance? You may get some subsection of socialists but not all that exist on Lemmy if your instance blocks them.
Yeah i can see both of 'em, or well, i can search them and view users so i think my admins did not defederate; do you know any tool i can use to see if my admins defederated?
You can check “instances” at the bottom of the browser version of your site! And fair enough for being federated with Hexbear and Lemmygrad.
I, too, love to dismiss people based on my preconceived notions of their character rather than what they write.
Nah, i just thought it was funny that you followed exactly the type of stereotypes about the instance you are on
To be clear: i was on .ml too once, i just moved after that because people were de-federating from it and i wanted to use a more local instance (feddit.it is Italian and i am Italian)
I, too, like to dismiss people based on my preconceived notions of their character rather than what they write, and then crawl back into my hole like a snivelling little coward when i am called out
The fuck? Be less acidic and maybe people will take you seriously.
Oh noooo did I treat you like you treated me? Oh nooooo, you’re just a widdle smol bean poor widdle you how could anyone ever be mean to you? And completely out of nowhere!