61 ms·
You would have to really flex the definition of authoritarian to include the US, to the point of making the word uselessly broad.
by joshuapants 12y ago
You would have to really flex the definition of authoritarian to include the US, to the point of making the word uselessly broad.
- JadeNB 12y agoThe OED says: > Favourable to or characterized by obedience to authority as opposed to personal liberty; strict, dictatorial. It's certainly reasonable to argue about whether this actually applies; but I don't think that it represents a useless dilution of the word to think that it might. (Well, not 'dictatorial', but the rest of it.)
- Jtsummers 12y agoI'd like to hear that argument and not just the assertion that it is arguable.
- JadeNB 12y agoActually I meant by > It's certainly reasonable to argue about whether this actually applies literally that it is reasonable to argue, i.e., that neither position is obviously irrefutably true; and also I think I've created enough of a de-rail already here; but, if I had to make an argument for authoritarianism, I think that I would claim that the concept of free-speech zones instantly implies, for some parts of US government at some times, more respect for authority than personal liberty.