5 ms·

Some Republican movements have been authoritarian, but an effort to prevent people from saying that which is undesirable is definition authoritarian just as muc

Some Republican movements have been authoritarian, but an effort to prevent people from saying that which is undesirable is definition authoritarian just as much if not more so. I don't know what example of authoritarianism you would offer as characteristic of the Republican party, but I'm sure you could offer more than one or two. That's because both political parties must push authoritarianism because both must accumulate authoritarian power to stay in the game, lest they be overpowered by the opposing party. While constituents, we the people, agree on most points like personal freedom, individuality, respect of human life, and liberty etc., politicians of both parties, out of necessity, must paint their opponents as the authoritarian regime, set on revoking personal freedom and individuality, and devaluing human life. If you dislike either party, it's not because one is more authoritarian than the other. It's because we lack the mental capacity to retain all the information that makes up the world around us, and must therefore make easier to process, generalizations to survive; Republican, Democrat, grassroots, mainstream, Black, Hispanic, White, etc. And it's obviously no secret that this necessity to generalize is very much exploitable. What you don't like about the Republican party is all the things that are also the Democratic party, but only in a generalized view that the opposing parties' electorate has succeeded to exploit in your mind.

fzeroracer 4y ago
This is simply not true. You're trying to do a 'both sides are bad it's only your perception coloring your things' deal, but I live in a red state where Republicans encouraged bounty hunters to go after and harass women while also trying to control them if they leave to other states. The only 'generalized view' is the one being created by Republicans, which I see pushed by Republicans and supported by Republicans. You don't have to look far to see some of the dreadful things they're pushing, and trying to pretend both sides are equally bad is not only intellectually dishonest but it's also argumentally lazy.
- junofan 4y ago
  [flagged]
- trimethylpurine 4y ago
  You've given me anecdotes and then proceeded to generalize. And called me lazy, which taken together is hilarious. Let's investigate that philosophy, shall we? Generalizing by nature requires the ignorance of certain truths or anecdotes, in favor of others in order to simplify and conceptualize complex ideas about the world around us. Read that again. Generalizing requires ignorance. When you generalize, which you just did, you are, if only by definition, wrong. You must be, logically. If you need help gaining some understanding of logic systems, I'm happy to oblige, because I'm not "argumentally" lazy. (That's not a real word by the way.) Not all Democrats make up words. Not all Republicans hire bounty hunters. In summary, when you generalize people as a group to be of a particular belief or characteristic, you must by definition ignore the vast majority of ideas that are intrinsic to the humanity and individuality within the group. That is dehumanizing; it's factually wrong, and it's frankly immoral.
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    The whole bounty hunter thing is something that was championed by the Republican party. Both locally here in Texas as well as by the party as a whole. I'm not sure how you can call that generalizing when the party directly supports that position. If someone calls themselves a Republican and votes for them knowing that this is their position, then they tacitly support it. You're effectively taking the stance that you cannot ever criticize a political party for its actions because some small portion of its constituents may disagree which is like I mentioned before, the easy way out. It's avoiding arguing against the actual critique in favor of moving the argument somewhere entirely different.
    - trimethylpurine 4y ago
      That's not what I'm saying. But suit yourself. Let's run with your line of thinking and see how that plays out for you. Let's generalize the other way for the sake of debate. Let's assume you voted Democrat sometime before 2018. SC Justice Kennedy, a Republican made it illegal to prosecute gays for sodomy. Kennedy was on the bench so if you voted Democrat, I guess you're anti-gay, you sick bastard! (Me too apparently! Since I did.) Sure, Democrats are fighting for civil liberties, right? Unless you want to talk about how they are actually anti-gay, and opposed Trump's rules that federally prevent discriminating cross dressers at work. Didn't hear about that one? Well, that might be because you're busy listening to Democrat politicians YELLING SO LOUD about how they are pro gay rights. Pro civil rights. While they go sit in Congress and vote, just like everyone else, for the corporation who gave them the biggest campaign contribution. Check for yourself at Congress.gov what your Democrat politicians are voting for. Should we brand you with all of those horrible things they voted for like Intuit's grip on the complexities of the tax system? It's your fault taxes are hard to file, I guess! Surely that's a Democratic ideal! I blame you! I should, right? Isn't that what you're saying? That we blame you for your politicians? And if anything I just said about you isn't true, well, it's just a generalization, isn't it? So by your philosophy, I'm right. Whether you're anti gay or not, you aren't an individual so you don't actually have any opinion except what the Democratic party says your opinion is when they vote in Congress. You are anti-gay now and I don't care how much you want to defend yourself you can't because you voted Democrat. You're a gay hater bro. That's that. That's just who you are. At least by your philosophy. Which I very clearly disagree with.
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  [flagged]
mindslight 4y ago
I consider myself a libertarian. I might have written your comment several years ago, and I echoed its sentiment above when I described the parties' traditional dynamic. However, the Republican party of ~2020 onwards is a drastic qualitative departure from that symmetric status quo. You've thrown out "effort to prevent people from saying that which is undesirable" as an example of Democratic authoritarianism. However, this is not a mainstream grassroots view. Rather it's the status quo agglomeration of power by politicians, the government grabbing power while entrenching the big tech oligopoly. Democratic voters in general don't seem to be sitting around going "Biden is going to shut those deplorables up", rather it's more like lament and resignation when the topic of social media censorship does come up. We can of course point to authoritarian policies enacted by politicians from both parties, because politicians are inherently authoritarian, and enacting authoritarian policies that enrich their sponsors is their bread and butter. However, the cults of personalities around Republican politicians, the rejection of intellectualism, overtly excepting politicians from the rule of law. These all indicate an authoritarian-flavored organizational structure, supported by the grassroots. If fronting as a strongman and pulling stupid stunts didn't work to get votes and donations, Republican politicians wouldn't do it. And the recent state level pushes to prohibit fundamental medical care (ie straight up individual liberty-destroying dark ages authoritarianism) is policy that doesn't enrich any corporate sponsors (as legislation usually must), but rather seems to be completely at the behest of their perceived constituents. And so, I no longer consider the two parties symmetric. The Republicans have seemingly made their mainstream platform to dismantle our institutions in favor of regressing to some sort of good-old-days theocracy, while the Democrats still basically represent the corporate/bureaucratic status quo. And while I find that status quo repugnant from a position of wanting to reform it in favor of individual liberty, I'd much rather have the imperfect institutions we've come to take for granted, like the rule of law, than have them destroyed from the top down.
- trimethylpurine 4y ago
  The only difference between us is that I'm aware that we're both victims of marketing. You seem to imagine that it's just me, which suggests to me that it's just you. And that only further makes my point. If you're the egoist, then I'm right. If I'm the egoist, then I'm even more right. At least you acknowledge that you can't sum up someone's opinions based on which party they vote for. The reality is simply that you only get one blanket vote for probably one issue you read about, and thousands you didn't but apparently should be held accountable for.

fzeroracer 4y ago

This is simply not true. You're trying to do a 'both sides are bad it's only your perception coloring your things' deal, but I live in a red state where Republicans encouraged bounty hunters to go after and harass women while also trying to control them if they leave to other states. The only 'generalized view' is the one being created by Republicans, which I see pushed by Republicans and supported by Republicans. You don't have to look far to see some of the dreadful things they're pushing, and trying to pretend both sides are equally bad is not only intellectually dishonest but it's also argumentally lazy.

junofan 4y ago
[flagged]
trimethylpurine 4y ago
You've given me anecdotes and then proceeded to generalize. And called me lazy, which taken together is hilarious. Let's investigate that philosophy, shall we? Generalizing by nature requires the ignorance of certain truths or anecdotes, in favor of others in order to simplify and conceptualize complex ideas about the world around us. Read that again. Generalizing requires ignorance. When you generalize, which you just did, you are, if only by definition, wrong. You must be, logically. If you need help gaining some understanding of logic systems, I'm happy to oblige, because I'm not "argumentally" lazy. (That's not a real word by the way.) Not all Democrats make up words. Not all Republicans hire bounty hunters. In summary, when you generalize people as a group to be of a particular belief or characteristic, you must by definition ignore the vast majority of ideas that are intrinsic to the humanity and individuality within the group. That is dehumanizing; it's factually wrong, and it's frankly immoral.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  The whole bounty hunter thing is something that was championed by the Republican party. Both locally here in Texas as well as by the party as a whole. I'm not sure how you can call that generalizing when the party directly supports that position. If someone calls themselves a Republican and votes for them knowing that this is their position, then they tacitly support it. You're effectively taking the stance that you cannot ever criticize a political party for its actions because some small portion of its constituents may disagree which is like I mentioned before, the easy way out. It's avoiding arguing against the actual critique in favor of moving the argument somewhere entirely different.
  - trimethylpurine 4y ago
    That's not what I'm saying. But suit yourself. Let's run with your line of thinking and see how that plays out for you. Let's generalize the other way for the sake of debate. Let's assume you voted Democrat sometime before 2018. SC Justice Kennedy, a Republican made it illegal to prosecute gays for sodomy. Kennedy was on the bench so if you voted Democrat, I guess you're anti-gay, you sick bastard! (Me too apparently! Since I did.) Sure, Democrats are fighting for civil liberties, right? Unless you want to talk about how they are actually anti-gay, and opposed Trump's rules that federally prevent discriminating cross dressers at work. Didn't hear about that one? Well, that might be because you're busy listening to Democrat politicians YELLING SO LOUD about how they are pro gay rights. Pro civil rights. While they go sit in Congress and vote, just like everyone else, for the corporation who gave them the biggest campaign contribution. Check for yourself at Congress.gov what your Democrat politicians are voting for. Should we brand you with all of those horrible things they voted for like Intuit's grip on the complexities of the tax system? It's your fault taxes are hard to file, I guess! Surely that's a Democratic ideal! I blame you! I should, right? Isn't that what you're saying? That we blame you for your politicians? And if anything I just said about you isn't true, well, it's just a generalization, isn't it? So by your philosophy, I'm right. Whether you're anti gay or not, you aren't an individual so you don't actually have any opinion except what the Democratic party says your opinion is when they vote in Congress. You are anti-gay now and I don't care how much you want to defend yourself you can't because you voted Democrat. You're a gay hater bro. That's that. That's just who you are. At least by your philosophy. Which I very clearly disagree with.
throwawayacc2 4y ago
[flagged]

mindslight 4y ago

I consider myself a libertarian. I might have written your comment several years ago, and I echoed its sentiment above when I described the parties' traditional dynamic. However, the Republican party of ~2020 onwards is a drastic qualitative departure from that symmetric status quo. You've thrown out "effort to prevent people from saying that which is undesirable" as an example of Democratic authoritarianism. However, this is not a mainstream grassroots view. Rather it's the status quo agglomeration of power by politicians, the government grabbing power while entrenching the big tech oligopoly. Democratic voters in general don't seem to be sitting around going "Biden is going to shut those deplorables up", rather it's more like lament and resignation when the topic of social media censorship does come up. We can of course point to authoritarian policies enacted by politicians from both parties, because politicians are inherently authoritarian, and enacting authoritarian policies that enrich their sponsors is their bread and butter. However, the cults of personalities around Republican politicians, the rejection of intellectualism, overtly excepting politicians from the rule of law. These all indicate an authoritarian-flavored organizational structure, supported by the grassroots. If fronting as a strongman and pulling stupid stunts didn't work to get votes and donations, Republican politicians wouldn't do it. And the recent state level pushes to prohibit fundamental medical care (ie straight up individual liberty-destroying dark ages authoritarianism) is policy that doesn't enrich any corporate sponsors (as legislation usually must), but rather seems to be completely at the behest of their perceived constituents. And so, I no longer consider the two parties symmetric. The Republicans have seemingly made their mainstream platform to dismantle our institutions in favor of regressing to some sort of good-old-days theocracy, while the Democrats still basically represent the corporate/bureaucratic status quo. And while I find that status quo repugnant from a position of wanting to reform it in favor of individual liberty, I'd much rather have the imperfect institutions we've come to take for granted, like the rule of law, than have them destroyed from the top down.

trimethylpurine 4y ago
The only difference between us is that I'm aware that we're both victims of marketing. You seem to imagine that it's just me, which suggests to me that it's just you. And that only further makes my point. If you're the egoist, then I'm right. If I'm the egoist, then I'm even more right. At least you acknowledge that you can't sum up someone's opinions based on which party they vote for. The reality is simply that you only get one blanket vote for probably one issue you read about, and thousands you didn't but apparently should be held accountable for.