5 ms·

The desire to "correct" other people who are wrong is the fundamental impulse of authoritarianism.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 7y ago
No, the desire to correct other people who are wrong is the fundamental impulse of pedantry. The desire to compel others to conform to one’s ideal of correctness is the fundamental impulse of authoritarianism. ...but also libertarianism, for a particular aspect of correctness.
- claytongulick 7y ago
  Huh? Can you explain? My understanding is that the core value / principle of libertarianism is individual liberty. How do you derive compelling others from that?
  - Jamwinner 7y ago
    Yeah, I agreed until his comment went off the rails there. I have noticed a movement to try to brand libs as 'crypto-republicans' recently for whatever reason. Its okay, and rational to not only think along 2 (or 3 or 5) party lines.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > My understanding is that the core value / principle of libertarianism is individual liberty. Yes, and libertarians tend to hold that it is right and proper (and even often define “violence” to exclude this use of force) to use any degree of force necessary to get others to observe the individual liberties libertarians see as essential.
mwcampbell 7y ago
> The desire to "correct" other people who are wrong is the fundamental impulse of authoritarianism. Maybe, but it's also the impulse of people who rightly care about the future of our shared world.
- throwaway8879 7y ago
  Rightly according to your subjective experience.
- etangent 7y ago
  > Maybe, but it's also the impulse of people who rightly care about the future of our shared world. Literally no authoritarian says "i want to suppress people because I'm evil mwahaha." Every single authoritarian says "i need to suppress this evil disinformation because i care about the future of our shared world---unlike you unworthy people who presumably don't care."
Der_Einzige 7y ago
Furthermore, it is rationalism which exists as the first non religious justification of hierarchy. Read Plato.
- luckylion 7y ago
  "People are lying" - "They'd say that you are lying" - "BUT I AM RIGHT". That's not rationalism, that's just saying "I'm right, they are wrong, end of discussion".
  - gbrown 7y ago
    That's because this conversation is occurring in the abstract - surely you can think of examples which don't fall into your supposed pattern (flat earth, pizza parlors, etc.)
    - luckylion 7y ago
      But those are super edge cases, the vast super majority of things aren't clear cut at all. "Is that policy going to increase employment? Will it depress wages, and by how much?" Good luck with judging who's right and who's wrong.
      - freeone3000 7y ago
        These "super edge cases" are happening monthly. THAT's the problem. The examples given weren't a historical review, they're a sampling of what happened in 2019! If these were in any way rare or outside the norm, I'd feel safe ignoring them, but even in cases of absolute truth and fact (jade in your vagina does not cure anything) we get a netflix series.
        luckylion 7y ago
        > These "super edge cases" are happening monthly. Yes, in a world with literally billions of people, you have a few millions who believe outlandish things. If that was the extent of the problem with polarization/toxicity on the internet (or public debate in general), I doubt we'd talk about it, and I'd be very happy with the state of the world. Those people have no large base, no stable membership, no money, no power. Focusing on them is like decrying the fall of science because 6yo Timmy still believes in Santa Clause.
gbrown 7y ago
So... would you consider that an argument against the sanctions levied against, for example, doctors who lie and fake data to stoke fears about vaccines and autism? What about fighting against conspiracy theories about the deep state and pizza parlors? There's a tendency to wishfully think that people are rational and should be expected to sort out their own information environment with no governmental influence whatsoever, but I don't buy it at all. We're predictably manipulable, emotional creatures, and we can decide rationally to improve our information environment without falling into your implicit slippery slope.
- etangent 7y ago
  > would you consider that an argument against the sanctions levied against, for example, doctors who lie and fake data to stoke fears about vaccines and autism? Yes. I never said authoritarianism is bad. In fact, I probably consider myself an authoritarian.
mmhsieh 7y ago
also puritanism

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

No, the desire to correct other people who are wrong is the fundamental impulse of pedantry. The desire to compel others to conform to one’s ideal of correctness is the fundamental impulse of authoritarianism. ...but also libertarianism, for a particular aspect of correctness.

claytongulick 7y ago
Huh? Can you explain? My understanding is that the core value / principle of libertarianism is individual liberty. How do you derive compelling others from that?
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  Yeah, I agreed until his comment went off the rails there. I have noticed a movement to try to brand libs as 'crypto-republicans' recently for whatever reason. Its okay, and rational to not only think along 2 (or 3 or 5) party lines.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > My understanding is that the core value / principle of libertarianism is individual liberty. Yes, and libertarians tend to hold that it is right and proper (and even often define “violence” to exclude this use of force) to use any degree of force necessary to get others to observe the individual liberties libertarians see as essential.

mwcampbell 7y ago

> The desire to "correct" other people who are wrong is the fundamental impulse of authoritarianism. Maybe, but it's also the impulse of people who rightly care about the future of our shared world.

throwaway8879 7y ago
Rightly according to your subjective experience.
etangent 7y ago
> Maybe, but it's also the impulse of people who rightly care about the future of our shared world. Literally no authoritarian says "i want to suppress people because I'm evil mwahaha." Every single authoritarian says "i need to suppress this evil disinformation because i care about the future of our shared world---unlike you unworthy people who presumably don't care."

Der_Einzige 7y ago

Furthermore, it is rationalism which exists as the first non religious justification of hierarchy. Read Plato.

luckylion 7y ago
"People are lying" - "They'd say that you are lying" - "BUT I AM RIGHT". That's not rationalism, that's just saying "I'm right, they are wrong, end of discussion".
- gbrown 7y ago
  That's because this conversation is occurring in the abstract - surely you can think of examples which don't fall into your supposed pattern (flat earth, pizza parlors, etc.)
  - luckylion 7y ago
    But those are super edge cases, the vast super majority of things aren't clear cut at all. "Is that policy going to increase employment? Will it depress wages, and by how much?" Good luck with judging who's right and who's wrong.
    - freeone3000 7y ago
      These "super edge cases" are happening monthly. THAT's the problem. The examples given weren't a historical review, they're a sampling of what happened in 2019! If these were in any way rare or outside the norm, I'd feel safe ignoring them, but even in cases of absolute truth and fact (jade in your vagina does not cure anything) we get a netflix series.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        > These "super edge cases" are happening monthly. Yes, in a world with literally billions of people, you have a few millions who believe outlandish things. If that was the extent of the problem with polarization/toxicity on the internet (or public debate in general), I doubt we'd talk about it, and I'd be very happy with the state of the world. Those people have no large base, no stable membership, no money, no power. Focusing on them is like decrying the fall of science because 6yo Timmy still believes in Santa Clause.

gbrown 7y ago

So... would you consider that an argument against the sanctions levied against, for example, doctors who lie and fake data to stoke fears about vaccines and autism? What about fighting against conspiracy theories about the deep state and pizza parlors? There's a tendency to wishfully think that people are rational and should be expected to sort out their own information environment with no governmental influence whatsoever, but I don't buy it at all. We're predictably manipulable, emotional creatures, and we can decide rationally to improve our information environment without falling into your implicit slippery slope.

etangent 7y ago
> would you consider that an argument against the sanctions levied against, for example, doctors who lie and fake data to stoke fears about vaccines and autism? Yes. I never said authoritarianism is bad. In fact, I probably consider myself an authoritarian.

mmhsieh 7y ago

also puritanism