Authoritarianism is a meaningless term used by edgy children whose brains haven’t fully developed yet
You tend to lose a bit of credibility when you start your argument with this kind of sentences. After that you would need to prove that your reasoning is at least as qualitative, as, say, Hannah Arendt’s work, and unfortunately it is far off the mark.
Her definition and study of totalitarianism are still intellectually relevant, but hey, if she had a blue car instead of a red car, then of course I see your point.
Do you all go to the same school of completely missing the point and having the most ludicrous rhetorical responses?
Okay, so it was that Hannah. Seems like you don’t see the point.
I’ve read her drivel. I just dont blindly swallow propaganda merely because I am told the person serving it is very clever. Looking at any definition or practical application of the concept of “authoritarianism” (don’t get me started on your weird sidetrack of totalitarianism) makes it clear its actual purpose is to serve as a propaganda shorthand for “badguyplace.”
Every definition is either so broad as to describe every state or so narrow as to be pointless, where you might as well just say China (or the USSR back in the day)
The ridiculous concept of looking at how a state wields power, while ignoring who is in control of the state, what support they have and to what purpose they wield said power, is asinine to say the least. Not to mention, once again, that every state wields power in an authoritarian fashion.
It was developed by Hannah Arendt so she could say “actually the Nazis and the society are totally the same and not at all like us freedom-lovers, never mind all the authority we wield to suppress our own and foreign populaces.”
The users in these parts think Hannah Arendt, along with Western Marxists like Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, etc. were CIA stooges. Expect people to spam Gabriel Rockhill at you.
It was more “you lose credibility when you make a grotesque thesis statement, both in substance and on the form”.
The form is sufficiently obvious I suppose. If I call you an edgy moron even before you disagree with me, you’re not exactly looking for a nice conversation.
On the merits of the existence of authoritarianism, dismissing the work of someone like Adorno - just like that - is genuinely hilarious.
Wait, now this needs some clarification. Is it anti-communists as someone who is against communists or anti-communists as people who share a hatred of communism? Because one might be downright libelous
But thanks for your reactivity, I feel like lib is a bit lazy
You still believe in the existence of propaganda or even the concept of memory? Smh, you need to break the chains of bourgeois discourse and ascend to ad hominem attacks
Thanks for providing us with an example! I almost had forgotten what it meant, being too busy with the Reddit losing and whatnot. Sorry I have to go there is this sponsored post about investing in crypto - I could lose a massive amount of money and dignity, can’t pass the opportunity.
You tend to lose a bit of credibility when you start your argument with this kind of sentences. After that you would need to prove that your reasoning is at least as qualitative, as, say, Hannah Arendt’s work, and unfortunately it is far off the mark.
Hannah Arendt, the woman who said Jews were to blame for the holocaust because they didnt rise up?
It’s like you don’t read these things at all?
Her definition and study of totalitarianism are still intellectually relevant, but hey, if she had a blue car instead of a red car, then of course I see your point.
Do you all go to the same school of completely missing the point and having the most ludicrous rhetorical responses?
I recommend reading Towards a Critique of the Category of Totalitarianism by Domenico Losurdo.
Okay, so it was that Hannah. Seems like you don’t see the point.
I’ve read her drivel. I just dont blindly swallow propaganda merely because I am told the person serving it is very clever. Looking at any definition or practical application of the concept of “authoritarianism” (don’t get me started on your weird sidetrack of totalitarianism) makes it clear its actual purpose is to serve as a propaganda shorthand for “badguyplace.”
Every definition is either so broad as to describe every state or so narrow as to be pointless, where you might as well just say China (or the USSR back in the day)
The ridiculous concept of looking at how a state wields power, while ignoring who is in control of the state, what support they have and to what purpose they wield said power, is asinine to say the least. Not to mention, once again, that every state wields power in an authoritarian fashion.
It was developed by Hannah Arendt so she could say “actually the Nazis and the society are totally the same and not at all like us freedom-lovers, never mind all the authority we wield to suppress our own and foreign populaces.”
The users in these parts think Hannah Arendt, along with Western Marxists like Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, etc. were CIA stooges. Expect people to spam Gabriel Rockhill at you.
Were they ?
Yes.
This has to be the shittiest conspiracy theory I have heard of. Amazing, thanks for bringing this to my attention.
“You lose credibility when you make a thesis statement I don’t already agree with!”
It was more “you lose credibility when you make a grotesque thesis statement, both in substance and on the form”.
The form is sufficiently obvious I suppose. If I call you an edgy moron even before you disagree with me, you’re not exactly looking for a nice conversation.
On the merits of the existence of authoritarianism, dismissing the work of someone like Adorno - just like that - is genuinely hilarious.
Aka something you disagree with.
What the fuck does that even mean? You’re just trying to sound smart now.
In that they disagree with you, yes.
So they disagree with you
Ha! They told me the odds of winning the lottery were infinitesimal and yet I have been called a lib on lemmy.ml. Nobody will believe me.
my bad, i’ll fix it
I even fixed the spelling!
Wait, now this needs some clarification. Is it anti-communists as someone who is against communists or anti-communists as people who share a hatred of communism? Because one might be downright libelous
But thanks for your reactivity, I feel like lib is a bit lazy
Just someone who is against communism. I did not intend to make it seam you hated us.
Great, because you’ve become very dear to me. xoxox
*weakest
“I, the arbiter of credibility, have decided this claim is self-evidently ridiculous for reasons I don’t need to explain”
Lol, of course
I think this comes from Giles in the novelization of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, not from Arendt. But easy to confuse when you have read neither
That’s an amazing counterpoint, thank you.
No worries. Dismissing the very concept of authoritarianism right off the bat was a nice move, too.
Libs being confronted with the fact that propaganda terms they’ve memorized are meaningless never gets old.
You still believe in the existence of propaganda or even the concept of memory? Smh, you need to break the chains of bourgeois discourse and ascend to ad hominem attacks
That’s not an ad hominem dumbass. Neither is this.
Rule 2
Mods i spill my juice
😢
I was there to make new friends but everyone is very mean.
What goes around comes around
I wish you Reddit losers would actually learn what an ad hominem is before you spew it everywhere.
Thanks for providing us with an example! I almost had forgotten what it meant, being too busy with the Reddit losing and whatnot. Sorry I have to go there is this sponsored post about investing in crypto - I could lose a massive amount of money and dignity, can’t pass the opportunity.
Go back to Reddit you insufferable fucking dork
Rule 2
See you there!
I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Thank you for providing much needed levity in this thread.
Do you dismiss the very concept of Badguyism?