• drolex@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      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?

      • BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        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.”