I'm coming to understand what they mean by authoritarian is "unfair." There are unfair circumstances that don't allow liberals to take power through their preferred democratic theater mechanisms. There are restrictions on things like large business interests involving themselves within the political sphere. There's only a single party, meaning a liberal/capitalist party can't gain representation. There are restrictions on media that prevent a liberal viewpoint from dominating. And since they're liberals they can't just say they want to overthrow socialism because it's contrary to their interests. Instead they have to invent this complex mythology about authoritarian abuses of power that would justify the advocacy of overthrowing a foreign country.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I think you're really onto something with this. "Unfair" really does seem to sum up their objections to single party states, and not allowing reactionaries voices.

In the US for example free soeech brainworms are drummed into young peoples heads with the idea of fairness. KKK member has to have free speech too or maybe you wouldn't. It has to be fair. The content if the speech doesn't matter.

That example isnt hyperbole for anyone who doesn't know, thats the literal court case they use to talk about free speech. A KKK member had a show on local access cable and sued when he was kicked off air. Got to be fair. It would be authoritarian to not let reactionaries speak

[–] axont@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah, the ACLU sued on the behalf of the KKK to march through a majority black neighborhood where kids could see them. Just all around lack of empathy from free speech warriors.

[–] Chapo0114@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Interestingly, finding that out helped me shake out some of my LIB brainworms back in college

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)