We're not all that different / I promise not to scare you
October 19, 2021 1:17 PM Subscribe
A thread (reader, original tweets) on the Authoritarian disposition -- 33% of the population take the stance and there's little benefit to reasoning with them, "how do you manage a democracy containing them?"
The left/right, libertarian/authoritarian political compass misses what I think is a very important distinction; that there are (at least) two very different significant drivers of the inclination towards authoritarianism: the desire to maintain tradition/values; and the cheater-punisher instinct. Authoritarian peoples often have both, but you can have just one and not the other.
posted by lastobelus at 1:36 PM on October 19, 2021 [18 favorites]
posted by lastobelus at 1:36 PM on October 19, 2021 [18 favorites]
I've thought a good test for an authoritarian mindset is the immediate response to a crisis. Is it "how do we fix this?" or "whose fault is it?"
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 1:45 PM on October 19, 2021 [34 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 1:45 PM on October 19, 2021 [34 favorites]
I've thought a good test for an authoritarian mindset is the immediate response to a crisis. Is it "how do we fix this?" or "whose fault is it?"
In my experience, it's usually the authoritarians' fault.
And I'm sorry, Ms. Stenner, but when you say not to celebrate diversity, I hear you telling me to live my life in such a way that it doesn't upset the worst people around me, and I'm not interested in doing that. Not anymore.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:47 PM on October 19, 2021 [71 favorites]
In my experience, it's usually the authoritarians' fault.
And I'm sorry, Ms. Stenner, but when you say not to celebrate diversity, I hear you telling me to live my life in such a way that it doesn't upset the worst people around me, and I'm not interested in doing that. Not anymore.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:47 PM on October 19, 2021 [71 favorites]
I also look forward to digging in more deeply but I find it interesting that "just don't scare them with multiplicity" is the recommendation. I think, like many liberal answers, it harms minorities in a given culture by hiding them (and while representation isn't everything, it's also not nothing). I don't know yet what a better suggestion is, but as someone who has never been in the majority anywhere I've lived, I do know undermining the appeal of homogeneity (or the ability of others' to inflict it if they can't stretch their minds) is pretty vital.
posted by dame at 1:58 PM on October 19, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by dame at 1:58 PM on October 19, 2021 [14 favorites]
"Don't trigger them"
Oh my lord, the irony. It's eclipsing the fucking sun.
Option three, not discussed in the thread, is to figure out how to keep them from wanting to vote. Which, hopefully, Trump does for us by continuing to threaten to tell his supporters not to vote, which they then hear and prime themselves for.
posted by Slackermagee at 1:59 PM on October 19, 2021 [35 favorites]
Oh my lord, the irony. It's eclipsing the fucking sun.
Option three, not discussed in the thread, is to figure out how to keep them from wanting to vote. Which, hopefully, Trump does for us by continuing to threaten to tell his supporters not to vote, which they then hear and prime themselves for.
posted by Slackermagee at 1:59 PM on October 19, 2021 [35 favorites]
I've thought a good test for an authoritarian mindset is the immediate response to a crisis. Is it "how do we fix this?" or "whose fault is it?"
In which case, the authoritarian mindset can be summarised as “shit doesn't happen, it's caused by assholes”.
posted by acb at 2:01 PM on October 19, 2021 [3 favorites]
In which case, the authoritarian mindset can be summarised as “shit doesn't happen, it's caused by assholes”.
posted by acb at 2:01 PM on October 19, 2021 [3 favorites]
And I'm sorry, Ms. Stenner, but when you say not to celebrate diversity
Of course that Stenner interview is with Helen Lewis, a violently nasty TERF/FART/whatever and participant in the Harper's Letter authors' harassment of trans people.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 2:03 PM on October 19, 2021 [25 favorites]
Of course that Stenner interview is with Helen Lewis, a violently nasty TERF/FART/whatever and participant in the Harper's Letter authors' harassment of trans people.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 2:03 PM on October 19, 2021 [25 favorites]
Thing is, like lawful-neutral-chaotic alignments in Dungeons & Dragons, the authoritarian impulse can vary in how it is directed, eg. who - or what political or social structures - are considered the authority. Here in Canada, it seems from what I’ve observed to be partly small-c conservativism that has helped keep opposition to any sort of privatized, two-tier health care system at high enough levels to prevent large-C Conservative Party efforts to allow that particular cash grab/inequity. I think what would be most useful would be figuring out messaging that would alienate more folks with an authoritarian mindset from the grifters and bigots so many of them are currently aligned behind.
Multiculturalism is not necessarily or fundamentally anti-authoritarian, any more than having a diversity in choice of consumer goods (much lauded by current conservative authoritarians as one of the benefits of capitalism) is. (Not meaning to imply that the two are equivalent beyond the superficial level of both involving variety.)
posted by eviemath at 2:04 PM on October 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
Multiculturalism is not necessarily or fundamentally anti-authoritarian, any more than having a diversity in choice of consumer goods (much lauded by current conservative authoritarians as one of the benefits of capitalism) is. (Not meaning to imply that the two are equivalent beyond the superficial level of both involving variety.)
posted by eviemath at 2:04 PM on October 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
Though in the US the authoritarian mindset tends to gravitate toward the right wing of politics, look around at some of the more contentious threads here and don't lose sight that the authoritarian mindset is decidedly not under-represented among the MeFi psychographic.
posted by tclark at 2:17 PM on October 19, 2021 [41 favorites]
posted by tclark at 2:17 PM on October 19, 2021 [41 favorites]
This sounds a bit like the argument that the Third Reich was a natural and inevitable consequence of public revulsion at the excesses of the Weimar era.
posted by acb at 2:17 PM on October 19, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by acb at 2:17 PM on October 19, 2021 [14 favorites]
> Multiculturalism is not necessarily or fundamentally anti-authoritarian
I'm not certain I agree with that. The differences in consumer items is superficial. A culture genuinely, deeply accepting that homogeneity is actually less good would be the start of something really amazing, I think. I wish I could describe why better — lord knows I have an ever-aging half-done essay on being mixed that's trying — but I do think it's a deeper thing.
posted by dame at 2:20 PM on October 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'm not certain I agree with that. The differences in consumer items is superficial. A culture genuinely, deeply accepting that homogeneity is actually less good would be the start of something really amazing, I think. I wish I could describe why better — lord knows I have an ever-aging half-done essay on being mixed that's trying — but I do think it's a deeper thing.
posted by dame at 2:20 PM on October 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
Good insight that authoritarians defend.
Murdoch and the Alt Right have figured out to hack authoritarian motivations to defend the interests of both the rich and the racist.
Question becomes how to redirect the authoritarians to defending both the common good and the values of a society of structural racism and structural sexism?
posted by otherchaz at 2:25 PM on October 19, 2021 [8 favorites]
Murdoch and the Alt Right have figured out to hack authoritarian motivations to defend the interests of both the rich and the racist.
Question becomes how to redirect the authoritarians to defending both the common good and the values of a society of structural racism and structural sexism?
posted by otherchaz at 2:25 PM on October 19, 2021 [8 favorites]
but I find it interesting that "just don't scare them with multiplicity" is the recommendation.
Well sure, you'd want to lead with something like Beetlejuice before diving deeper into the Keaton oeuvre.
posted by star gentle uterus at 2:31 PM on October 19, 2021 [51 favorites]
Well sure, you'd want to lead with something like Beetlejuice before diving deeper into the Keaton oeuvre.
posted by star gentle uterus at 2:31 PM on October 19, 2021 [51 favorites]
If we can somehow get to a point where tolerance of different cultures is the traditional value, then defending that would be the inclination of those who are uncomfortable with changes to the status quo, just as defending Canada’s current public health care system is, despite public health care being more associated with progressive or leftist politics, is my argument. The question of how we get to that point is, or course, a bit of a “then a miracle occurs” step from our present vantage point though, yeah.
posted by eviemath at 2:31 PM on October 19, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 2:31 PM on October 19, 2021 [12 favorites]
Is there some way to tap into authoritarianism to get people to get vaccinated or implement gun control? Why are authoritarian minded folk only rebellious when it comes to things that hurt others? Could a sufficiently stern government push tolerance right down their throats and make them like it?
posted by snofoam at 2:33 PM on October 19, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 2:33 PM on October 19, 2021 [9 favorites]
Could a sufficiently stern government push tolerance right down their throats and make them like it?
I feel like this is the right question to be asking.
To wit: Here in Washington state, we have a vaccine mandate and people had to have the jab by a few days ago or lose their jobs if they work for a state job or a hospital. TONS of cops and nurses made a stink that they were going to quit and acted like this was tyranny. In the end, only a small fraction of them actually quit their jobs. In the end, they listened to and gave into authority when authority put its foot down.
It's definitely a case of finding a way to exploit their "Harder Daddy, please" attitudes. They won't eat the carrot but they love taking the stick.
posted by deadaluspark at 2:38 PM on October 19, 2021 [64 favorites]
I feel like this is the right question to be asking.
To wit: Here in Washington state, we have a vaccine mandate and people had to have the jab by a few days ago or lose their jobs if they work for a state job or a hospital. TONS of cops and nurses made a stink that they were going to quit and acted like this was tyranny. In the end, only a small fraction of them actually quit their jobs. In the end, they listened to and gave into authority when authority put its foot down.
It's definitely a case of finding a way to exploit their "Harder Daddy, please" attitudes. They won't eat the carrot but they love taking the stick.
posted by deadaluspark at 2:38 PM on October 19, 2021 [64 favorites]
Is there some way to tap into authoritarianism to get people to get vaccinated or implement gun control?
That's how it already works! The Tweetstorm says up-front that half of authoritarian-minded people are on the left. Judging by social media, a lot of people got vaccinated not just because it's the right thing to do from a public health and safety standpoint, but also to "own" the Trumpists and feel better about themselves.
posted by LSK at 2:43 PM on October 19, 2021 [6 favorites]
That's how it already works! The Tweetstorm says up-front that half of authoritarian-minded people are on the left. Judging by social media, a lot of people got vaccinated not just because it's the right thing to do from a public health and safety standpoint, but also to "own" the Trumpists and feel better about themselves.
posted by LSK at 2:43 PM on October 19, 2021 [6 favorites]
Missed the edit window the quoted bit should read "Hit me harder Daddy, please" so it doesn't read as overtly sexual with the next line. My apologies on bad writing.
posted by deadaluspark at 2:44 PM on October 19, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by deadaluspark at 2:44 PM on October 19, 2021 [5 favorites]
12/ These normative threats (threat to sameness, threats to values, threats to confidence in leaders)... are easy to trigger. They produce massive newspaper sales, clicks, outrage - the outcome is either votes or money or both.
The fact that the moral is being presented as "soften the multicultural message" rather than "burn down every media outlet in the world" is an odd misreading.
posted by mittens at 2:47 PM on October 19, 2021 [16 favorites]
The fact that the moral is being presented as "soften the multicultural message" rather than "burn down every media outlet in the world" is an odd misreading.
posted by mittens at 2:47 PM on October 19, 2021 [16 favorites]
Is there some way to tap into authoritarianism to get people to get vaccinated or implement gun control? Why are authoritarian minded folk only rebellious when it comes to things that hurt others? Could a sufficiently stern government push tolerance right down their throats and make them like it?
Yes. See eg. Nova Scotia's pandemic response under previous Liberal premier and stern/disappointed dad figure Stephen McNeil. Or the messaging around health care, specifically including mental health care and despite that typically being considered a more progressive political agenda, that the provincial Conservative party used that won them the recent provincial election. Or the fact that fracking is quite unpopular here, not really because of politics for most people (who are fine with other forms of resource extraction that are more traditional locally) but instead because it's new and different and Not How Things Have Traditionally Been Done So Why Ever Would We Consider It.
I think a lot of this is about what environments people feel comfortable in and how willing they are to be outside of that comfort zone. Currently a lot of North Americans with an authoritarian mindset have grown up in politically conservative, bigoted, highly homogeneous environments. But you often hear folks who grew up in big, more multicultural cities also speak of the discomfort that they viscerally feel in more racially homogenous, rural areas. Or, my 'normal' growing up involved enough lgbtq people that I feel uncomfortable in heteronormative spaces, despite being heterosexual and close enough to cis gendered myself.
posted by eviemath at 2:52 PM on October 19, 2021 [8 favorites]
Yes. See eg. Nova Scotia's pandemic response under previous Liberal premier and stern/disappointed dad figure Stephen McNeil. Or the messaging around health care, specifically including mental health care and despite that typically being considered a more progressive political agenda, that the provincial Conservative party used that won them the recent provincial election. Or the fact that fracking is quite unpopular here, not really because of politics for most people (who are fine with other forms of resource extraction that are more traditional locally) but instead because it's new and different and Not How Things Have Traditionally Been Done So Why Ever Would We Consider It.
I think a lot of this is about what environments people feel comfortable in and how willing they are to be outside of that comfort zone. Currently a lot of North Americans with an authoritarian mindset have grown up in politically conservative, bigoted, highly homogeneous environments. But you often hear folks who grew up in big, more multicultural cities also speak of the discomfort that they viscerally feel in more racially homogenous, rural areas. Or, my 'normal' growing up involved enough lgbtq people that I feel uncomfortable in heteronormative spaces, despite being heterosexual and close enough to cis gendered myself.
posted by eviemath at 2:52 PM on October 19, 2021 [8 favorites]
Missed the edit window
Same. Meant to say
society devoid of structural racism and structural sexism
posted by otherchaz at 3:16 PM on October 19, 2021 [5 favorites]
Same. Meant to say
society devoid of structural racism and structural sexism
posted by otherchaz at 3:16 PM on October 19, 2021 [5 favorites]
Years back, John Dean, yes, that John Dean, was in town promoting his book on authoritarianism. He was quick to point out that it does not imply wanting to be the authority. Instead, it applies to people who wanted to be subject to an authority. The Germans under Hitler, were the cause for the original study that birthed the idea of authoritarianism. Trumpists look to Trump to be their leader. What he says is the truth. There are those who take advantage of this kind of people by getting recognized by them as being an authority. Then that person can use those people as they see fit. They hold their power primarily through fear, the I will protect you from the wrong kind of people sort of thing. As to multi-culturalism that is seen as promoting these wrong kind of people. Authoritarianism is an Us vs Them ideology. The authority draws the line between the two and the people follow. The link with this group to evangelical religion simply fits into the need to be told what to do and what to think. Life and reality are much easier when you’re told what to do and think. At least for 30% of us.
posted by njohnson23 at 3:21 PM on October 19, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 3:21 PM on October 19, 2021 [12 favorites]
>And I'm sorry, Ms. Stenner, but when you say not to celebrate diversity, I hear you telling me to live my life in such a way that it doesn't upset the worst people around me, and I'm not interested in doing that. Not anymore.
Damn right, and it's not my tediously-default-privileged place to say otherwise.
Like fuck do I want this to be some competition over who was most hurt by the system, say, for bullied people who become bullies and think only authoritarianism is some way of nature that orders everyone in one corner and all the out-grouped, 'different' and non-compliant underdogs in the other corner. (My "only winning move not to play" and "iterated Nash equilibrium" thoughts suggest that we emphasise more we have in common than difference and that being anything other than #1 means you share with the nth-and-below of your rank and want to maximise that pool from those above you.)
While also: like fuck do I want to sit and silently accept those thoughts and to marinade in complicit acceptance that we should 'get on by' and 'not make waves'. Some of those peolle want to be progressive and to live as survivors-not-victims of our times. Some of the authoritarian crowd are having a crisis over who's leading us where and have capacity to follow the path of a better vision in the direction led by a better leader.
I'd hope we can have compassion, we prove that civilisation raises us above out-grouping as 'different' those we can't control with bullying, and we bring justice, reconciliation and restoration to those places where we can't see the human being of one another. That's a thing worth baking among our traditions.
posted by k3ninho at 3:42 PM on October 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
Damn right, and it's not my tediously-default-privileged place to say otherwise.
Like fuck do I want this to be some competition over who was most hurt by the system, say, for bullied people who become bullies and think only authoritarianism is some way of nature that orders everyone in one corner and all the out-grouped, 'different' and non-compliant underdogs in the other corner. (My "only winning move not to play" and "iterated Nash equilibrium" thoughts suggest that we emphasise more we have in common than difference and that being anything other than #1 means you share with the nth-and-below of your rank and want to maximise that pool from those above you.)
While also: like fuck do I want to sit and silently accept those thoughts and to marinade in complicit acceptance that we should 'get on by' and 'not make waves'. Some of those peolle want to be progressive and to live as survivors-not-victims of our times. Some of the authoritarian crowd are having a crisis over who's leading us where and have capacity to follow the path of a better vision in the direction led by a better leader.
I'd hope we can have compassion, we prove that civilisation raises us above out-grouping as 'different' those we can't control with bullying, and we bring justice, reconciliation and restoration to those places where we can't see the human being of one another. That's a thing worth baking among our traditions.
posted by k3ninho at 3:42 PM on October 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
Back when the Reagan era gave way to the (Bill) Clinton era, there was a fair bit of conversation about how the country would respond to the change from having a President who was seen as a "nation's dad" to one who was more a "nation's brother."
posted by PhineasGage at 3:44 PM on October 19, 2021
posted by PhineasGage at 3:44 PM on October 19, 2021
Soooo... get authoritarians to fear an outside force by teleporting a giant fake alien into the middle of a city and killing a bunch of people, so you can try to turn them to good?
posted by fnerg at 4:25 PM on October 19, 2021 [24 favorites]
posted by fnerg at 4:25 PM on October 19, 2021 [24 favorites]
Some of the vax mandate comments are dancing around the problem that, to Republicans, Democrats are the authoritarian party. The Dems are the ones blindly following scientists, forcing conformity with masks, going on witch hunts etc. So the narrative goes, anyway.
And my observations are that these arguments are gaining a bit of traction with young people, who are pretty fond of bodily autonomy, not in love with the idea of group sacrifice, and on general principle seeking to rebel against whoever's in charge, even if it's "the good guys."
posted by xigxag at 4:35 PM on October 19, 2021 [7 favorites]
And my observations are that these arguments are gaining a bit of traction with young people, who are pretty fond of bodily autonomy, not in love with the idea of group sacrifice, and on general principle seeking to rebel against whoever's in charge, even if it's "the good guys."
posted by xigxag at 4:35 PM on October 19, 2021 [7 favorites]
There's no point in that thread where you couldn't replace Authoritarian with Conservative and have it make a difference.
posted by OHenryPacey at 4:39 PM on October 19, 2021
posted by OHenryPacey at 4:39 PM on October 19, 2021
young people...not in love with the idea of group sacrifice
I guess I believe you, but cite?
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:01 PM on October 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
I guess I believe you, but cite?
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:01 PM on October 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
not in love with the idea of group sacrifice
From context, you don't seem to be referring to the sacrifice of the elderly, immune compromised, and just unlucky to the pandemic for the convenience of others, since not being fond of that would tend to lead one to support vaccine mandates and other public health measures. So I'm a bit confused about what you are referring to?
posted by eviemath at 5:35 PM on October 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
From context, you don't seem to be referring to the sacrifice of the elderly, immune compromised, and just unlucky to the pandemic for the convenience of others, since not being fond of that would tend to lead one to support vaccine mandates and other public health measures. So I'm a bit confused about what you are referring to?
posted by eviemath at 5:35 PM on October 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
Actually implement a democracy instead of this feudal inspired system that pretends at being one?
posted by symbioid at 5:42 PM on October 19, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by symbioid at 5:42 PM on October 19, 2021 [9 favorites]
I feel like we've been dancing around this whole argument ever since those studying authoritarianism, and those doing political science, discovered neuroimaging. Certainly the idea of a 'Republican brain' was something i discovered here when this book made a splash. (Other related studies that came my way that I've had to cite this year in conversation would be the ones on disgust (The Atlantic writeup))
Definitely it's something I've sat and digested over the years, and I've moved past the reading the twitter thread offered or even the conclusion from the interview. Reorientation or redefinition of values is definitely my takeaway point these days. I look at historical examples like how the Dutch managed to meet WW2 with lower comparable antisemitism because they defined their Jewish population as Dutch well before the war (IE not othered). The Canadian examples above as well. The fact being a thirdworlder my entire upbringing is living in a constant state of being promoted/fed one cultural set of ideals over another. Or even being from a region where "authoritarian democracy" is an actual label Southeast Asianists like to use.
Being authoritarian is just a disposition that you note in order to appeal for your political platform in a different manner, it's not a prediction of which platform you'll end up convinced it's the Most Traditional One To Defend. (ETA: tho i think the personal work for "liberals" is to square that perceived contradiction so when they see such campaigning they don't reflexively see it as a betrayal of their values. Or maybe it is, but it's toward the purposes they want.)
posted by cendawanita at 6:38 PM on October 19, 2021 [10 favorites]
Definitely it's something I've sat and digested over the years, and I've moved past the reading the twitter thread offered or even the conclusion from the interview. Reorientation or redefinition of values is definitely my takeaway point these days. I look at historical examples like how the Dutch managed to meet WW2 with lower comparable antisemitism because they defined their Jewish population as Dutch well before the war (IE not othered). The Canadian examples above as well. The fact being a thirdworlder my entire upbringing is living in a constant state of being promoted/fed one cultural set of ideals over another. Or even being from a region where "authoritarian democracy" is an actual label Southeast Asianists like to use.
Being authoritarian is just a disposition that you note in order to appeal for your political platform in a different manner, it's not a prediction of which platform you'll end up convinced it's the Most Traditional One To Defend. (ETA: tho i think the personal work for "liberals" is to square that perceived contradiction so when they see such campaigning they don't reflexively see it as a betrayal of their values. Or maybe it is, but it's toward the purposes they want.)
posted by cendawanita at 6:38 PM on October 19, 2021 [10 favorites]
This directly ties in to the Evangelical thread. In "Jesus and John Wayne" Du Mez notes, "Instrumental to their [Evangelical] efforts to reclaim power, this rhetoric of fear would continue to bolster the role of the heroic masculine protector."
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:36 PM on October 19, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:36 PM on October 19, 2021 [6 favorites]
We actually already well know how to manage these folks. It's the same way we manage the KKK, neo-Nazis, and Harvey Weinstein. We shame them and the behaviors associated with their way of looking at the world so consistently and strongly that they do their utmost to hide their behavior and beliefs. We take them to court, and we cost them everything. We want them fragmented, and fearful of public scorn. Which means that we identify their behaviors, identify those who exhibit those behaviors with impunity, and show over and over again how they become pariahs.
We may not be able to "change their minds", but we can sure keep them running scared.
This is exactly what the whole "cancel culture" backlash is about. People like John Gruden who express their racism and misogyny in private with select groups of people who they know think the way they do are desperately afraid that social norms will make it dangerous for them to *ever* express their views to anyone. Who knows when a stray email to a like-minded jerk like Bruce Allen will get dredged up by an investigation 10 years later? This is what they desperately fear and why they have to push the "woke overreach" idea so strongly. Because they could be outed at any moment.
But it requires vigilance, because there will always be those who attempt to normalize or re-normalize acceptance of abhorrent points of view. The entire "alt right" movement was one giant effort to sanitize and rebrand fascism. The end game was to one day have people shrug if they see someone wearing a swastika. That can never be allowed to happen.
posted by macross city flaneur at 7:55 PM on October 19, 2021 [30 favorites]
We may not be able to "change their minds", but we can sure keep them running scared.
This is exactly what the whole "cancel culture" backlash is about. People like John Gruden who express their racism and misogyny in private with select groups of people who they know think the way they do are desperately afraid that social norms will make it dangerous for them to *ever* express their views to anyone. Who knows when a stray email to a like-minded jerk like Bruce Allen will get dredged up by an investigation 10 years later? This is what they desperately fear and why they have to push the "woke overreach" idea so strongly. Because they could be outed at any moment.
But it requires vigilance, because there will always be those who attempt to normalize or re-normalize acceptance of abhorrent points of view. The entire "alt right" movement was one giant effort to sanitize and rebrand fascism. The end game was to one day have people shrug if they see someone wearing a swastika. That can never be allowed to happen.
posted by macross city flaneur at 7:55 PM on October 19, 2021 [30 favorites]
That's how it already works! The Tweetstorm says up-front that half of authoritarian-minded people are on the left. Judging by social media, a lot of people got vaccinated not just because it's the right thing to do from a public health and safety standpoint, but also to "own" the Trumpists and feel better about themselves.
Important context is that 'left' in that thread is defined exclusively on economic policies (wealth redistribution is 'left', free market is 'right'), not party identity. The right panel of that first graph makes it clear that most of the authoritarians are in the (UK) conservative party. At least in the US, being on 'the left' implies other stuff beyond economic policies.
It's tiresome 'both sides' crap to say that the (US) left is just as prone to authoritarian tendencies as the right. It ain't fucking true. The only reason people try to make that claim is so that they can justify authoritarianism as normal.
It's not normal, one party benefits disproportionately from its normalization, and y'all should stop playing along.
posted by logicpunk at 7:55 PM on October 19, 2021 [30 favorites]
In Australia, the left wing (Labor) is the one that implements much tougher Covid control policies, so they have been wearing the authoritarian brand for the past 2 years.
For example, Melbourne (population 5 million) has been under a 9pm to 5am curfew for the last 10 weeks. People haven't been allowed to cross state borders, with families being separated for months. On the other hand, the right wing (Coalition) has been more lenient in its application of Covid restrictions, being loathe to apply border closures, curfews, or shutting retail except as an absolute last resort, generally trusting people to do the right thing on their own and using smart target policies rather than applying blanket rules by force.
It's now become the Left's branding - "vote for us, we are tough on Covid to protect our citizens" and everyone cheers.
posted by xdvesper at 8:30 PM on October 19, 2021 [5 favorites]
For example, Melbourne (population 5 million) has been under a 9pm to 5am curfew for the last 10 weeks. People haven't been allowed to cross state borders, with families being separated for months. On the other hand, the right wing (Coalition) has been more lenient in its application of Covid restrictions, being loathe to apply border closures, curfews, or shutting retail except as an absolute last resort, generally trusting people to do the right thing on their own and using smart target policies rather than applying blanket rules by force.
It's now become the Left's branding - "vote for us, we are tough on Covid to protect our citizens" and everyone cheers.
posted by xdvesper at 8:30 PM on October 19, 2021 [5 favorites]
What if we wait for a global pandemic and then develop an effective vaccine but convince them that it’s poison and the real cure is a commonly prescribed anti-parasite medicine that is available at tractor supply in a veterinary formulation designed for animals several times human body weight?
posted by interogative mood at 8:49 PM on October 19, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 8:49 PM on October 19, 2021 [5 favorites]
I enjoyed the irony of referring to the "complex and right versus simple but wrong" idea in the context of making arguments based in the two-axis political sentiment idea, which definitely falls into the "simple but wrong" camp. I found most of this simplistic, and the reference to evo-psych-woo (50% heritability means it must serve a function!) was not encouraging, either.
posted by biogeo at 11:50 PM on October 19, 2021 [22 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 11:50 PM on October 19, 2021 [22 favorites]
I always vote green or social democrats, I'm seen as a bleeding heart in my circle, but sure, I can be plenty authoritarian too. I don't think that's much of gotcha. Of course I want to conserve certain things - the welfare state in my country, the environment. Of course I'm sometimes against change - climate change for instance, I think we should slow that down as much as possible. I don't value disruption for the sake of disruption, so I see no merit whatsoever in things like bitcoin. You don't want to trust the banks, cute, I wouldn't want to trust any crypto exchange platform either, I think it's super silly to think you could get anywhere without having to trust anyone. I can see why some Rand worshipping, libertarian start-up bro might think he's the rebel compared to me, and so should he, if that makes him feel better about himself. I just don't think being a rebel is valuable on principle.
I am, above all, pragmatic. Let's say I'm in a group, heading towards a shared destination, and there's some discussion at a a crosspoint, which direction to take. I've never been here before, my sense of direction is shit, I suck at reading maps. I have nothing at all to contribute to the debate, damn right, I'm going to shut up and follow.
Or, let's say, I'm in the kitchen with my mum and my aunt, preparing a fancy meal for a holiday. Experience has shown that process as well as results will be most enjoyable, if we forgo opportunities for individual expressions of creativity and just agree beforehand on either my aunt or my mum calling the shots. I've found there's absolutely nothing to gain from a grassroots democratic approach on such an occasion.
There are other occasions where I do very much want to call the shots myself. But having to make decisions is exhausting and my energy is limited. I want to preserve my energy for the choices that matter most to me. I had the best work-life balance in a job where I worked closely with a good boss, who gave me enough autonomy and access to resources for me to feel like I could properly do my job, but also very clear directions and priorities. I'm much more my own boss now, and while I enjoy some aspects of that, my blood pressure is also through the roof. I think having a good boss is absolutely something to cherish.
I think what distinguishes me from the typical right-wing authoritarian is that they think leadership is a character trait you're born with, and I think it's entirely situational. I'm not going to follow you because you are "a born leader", because you look the part - I will laugh in your face if that's how you try to convince me. You need to show me that you have a goal, and a plan, and a map, and make a convincing case that you have learned how to read it. And if I happen to be the one with goal, and the plan, and the map in this scenario, I rather suggest you follow me. I think leadership is not a personality issue, I think it's just a task you might sometimes need to perform or not, depending on circumstances.
To be a useful member of a group - and I'm not arguing you have to be that, but I'm not at all a rugged individualist, so I personally would want to be - you really have be to able to lead as well as follow as the situation demands. You can call that being a sheeple, I call it efficiency through division of labour.
There can be no fixed hierachies, because it's all contigent. And I guess that what scares most of the right-wing types. I think they are absolutely flexible enough to lead and follow, but they can't deal with shifting hierarchies, they always need to know their exact place in it, it has to be something set in stone, ordained by a higher power, God, or evo-psycho or whatever. It's, most of all, fear of complexity.
posted by sohalt at 1:35 AM on October 20, 2021 [16 favorites]
I am, above all, pragmatic. Let's say I'm in a group, heading towards a shared destination, and there's some discussion at a a crosspoint, which direction to take. I've never been here before, my sense of direction is shit, I suck at reading maps. I have nothing at all to contribute to the debate, damn right, I'm going to shut up and follow.
Or, let's say, I'm in the kitchen with my mum and my aunt, preparing a fancy meal for a holiday. Experience has shown that process as well as results will be most enjoyable, if we forgo opportunities for individual expressions of creativity and just agree beforehand on either my aunt or my mum calling the shots. I've found there's absolutely nothing to gain from a grassroots democratic approach on such an occasion.
There are other occasions where I do very much want to call the shots myself. But having to make decisions is exhausting and my energy is limited. I want to preserve my energy for the choices that matter most to me. I had the best work-life balance in a job where I worked closely with a good boss, who gave me enough autonomy and access to resources for me to feel like I could properly do my job, but also very clear directions and priorities. I'm much more my own boss now, and while I enjoy some aspects of that, my blood pressure is also through the roof. I think having a good boss is absolutely something to cherish.
I think what distinguishes me from the typical right-wing authoritarian is that they think leadership is a character trait you're born with, and I think it's entirely situational. I'm not going to follow you because you are "a born leader", because you look the part - I will laugh in your face if that's how you try to convince me. You need to show me that you have a goal, and a plan, and a map, and make a convincing case that you have learned how to read it. And if I happen to be the one with goal, and the plan, and the map in this scenario, I rather suggest you follow me. I think leadership is not a personality issue, I think it's just a task you might sometimes need to perform or not, depending on circumstances.
To be a useful member of a group - and I'm not arguing you have to be that, but I'm not at all a rugged individualist, so I personally would want to be - you really have be to able to lead as well as follow as the situation demands. You can call that being a sheeple, I call it efficiency through division of labour.
There can be no fixed hierachies, because it's all contigent. And I guess that what scares most of the right-wing types. I think they are absolutely flexible enough to lead and follow, but they can't deal with shifting hierarchies, they always need to know their exact place in it, it has to be something set in stone, ordained by a higher power, God, or evo-psycho or whatever. It's, most of all, fear of complexity.
posted by sohalt at 1:35 AM on October 20, 2021 [16 favorites]
>50% heritability means it must serve a function!
...and heritability needs to be tempered with "civilisation overrules anima." Basically "behaviour is choice" and "you're a responsible adult" -- we might be animals with sex drives and, on top, we might be raised with examples where one demeans potential mates so that they don't believe there's better cost/benefit of our poor treatment -- but if we believe in the reflexivity of personhood (you acting on another will be acted on by another) we can overrule those desires and patterns with choices that get better outcomes.
posted by k3ninho at 1:37 AM on October 20, 2021 [4 favorites]
...and heritability needs to be tempered with "civilisation overrules anima." Basically "behaviour is choice" and "you're a responsible adult" -- we might be animals with sex drives and, on top, we might be raised with examples where one demeans potential mates so that they don't believe there's better cost/benefit of our poor treatment -- but if we believe in the reflexivity of personhood (you acting on another will be acted on by another) we can overrule those desires and patterns with choices that get better outcomes.
posted by k3ninho at 1:37 AM on October 20, 2021 [4 favorites]
You learn a lot about people’s incipient authoritarian tendencies when you put them in charge of a classroom. Many of my fellow high school teachers take by-the-book lefty stances but are in a continuous panic about imposing conformity and homogenous outcomes on very narrow metrics in their classrooms.
posted by argybarg at 5:44 AM on October 20, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 5:44 AM on October 20, 2021 [6 favorites]
If we can somehow get to a point where tolerance of different cultures is the traditional value,
I would argue that we do actually see this happening today! For example, it's part of what drives Islamophobia in Europe and North America, in that "freedom for women" is framed as a traditional cultural value here that needs to be vigorously defended against the "oppression of women" ascribed to religious Muslim women. (The actual freedom available to women in any given context is, as always, more complicated--and this kind of authoritarian knee-jerk attitude is very easy to manipulate for a variety of ends, of course.)
It's also something you see from the left when it comes to regional disputes within North America, e.g. northerners and Californians patting themselves on the back because the South is racist on the "not helpful" side... and actually intervening to pressure states run by reactionary conservatives into making real changes (e.g. California's ban on funding business travel for state employees to certain states on the "effective" side).
You also see quite a lot of this about perceived homophobia in other places as well as perceived misogyny, protecting social entitlements that are generally agreed to be fair, and so forth. This kind of angry defense of "traditional values" can absolutely be used to entrench unhelpful and often outright racist/homophobic/transphobic/etc values, but it can certainly also be used as a powerful defense against external attempts to erode minority protections too. And in fact you can see decades long projects among the wealthy and powerful to erode some of these traditional values over time in favor of the wealthy and in suspicion against, say, organized labor.
posted by sciatrix at 6:14 AM on October 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
I would argue that we do actually see this happening today! For example, it's part of what drives Islamophobia in Europe and North America, in that "freedom for women" is framed as a traditional cultural value here that needs to be vigorously defended against the "oppression of women" ascribed to religious Muslim women. (The actual freedom available to women in any given context is, as always, more complicated--and this kind of authoritarian knee-jerk attitude is very easy to manipulate for a variety of ends, of course.)
It's also something you see from the left when it comes to regional disputes within North America, e.g. northerners and Californians patting themselves on the back because the South is racist on the "not helpful" side... and actually intervening to pressure states run by reactionary conservatives into making real changes (e.g. California's ban on funding business travel for state employees to certain states on the "effective" side).
You also see quite a lot of this about perceived homophobia in other places as well as perceived misogyny, protecting social entitlements that are generally agreed to be fair, and so forth. This kind of angry defense of "traditional values" can absolutely be used to entrench unhelpful and often outright racist/homophobic/transphobic/etc values, but it can certainly also be used as a powerful defense against external attempts to erode minority protections too. And in fact you can see decades long projects among the wealthy and powerful to erode some of these traditional values over time in favor of the wealthy and in suspicion against, say, organized labor.
posted by sciatrix at 6:14 AM on October 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
The twitterthread makes some assumptions that I have been fighting against for decades. Maybe the author confuses anarchy for democracy?
It is squarely within democratic principles to look to leadership from politicians. Most of us are busy doing normal stuff and don't want to spend our time examining the details of politics. So we want to trust our politicians to do that, and we want them to tell us the truth about what they are doing. Again, not down to tiny details, just the outline, thanks. We want them to not be corrupt and not abuse their power, which are both a lot to ask, but we do so nevertheless.
Democratic politicians all over the world (not specifically US Democrats) have failed for decades by not explaining to their constituents how and why they are making the choices they do. I have friends on both sides of the aisle, and I sense that they are trying to change that after Brexit and Trump, but it may be too little too late.
Authoritarianism is a whole other beast and I feel it is gaining traction because more and more people don't get the concept of leadership within a democratic framework. Judging from the political realities around the globe, this is happening far more on the right than on the left. That doesn't mean it is not happening on the left, (Venezuela, anyone?) just that the assumptions in the twitterthread are not supported by data, unless you insist that Jacinda Arden is authoritarian, which is bullocks.
That all said, I came in here note that one of the insurrectionists from January 6th explained in court that "he felt he had gotten to know Trump from The Apprentice", and trusted him. That is so sad in so many ways. I mean, I suppose most people here find it laughable, and so do I to some extent, but that person's life is ruined and he almost killed a police officer. And American democracy.
posted by mumimor at 6:59 AM on October 20, 2021 [10 favorites]
It is squarely within democratic principles to look to leadership from politicians. Most of us are busy doing normal stuff and don't want to spend our time examining the details of politics. So we want to trust our politicians to do that, and we want them to tell us the truth about what they are doing. Again, not down to tiny details, just the outline, thanks. We want them to not be corrupt and not abuse their power, which are both a lot to ask, but we do so nevertheless.
Democratic politicians all over the world (not specifically US Democrats) have failed for decades by not explaining to their constituents how and why they are making the choices they do. I have friends on both sides of the aisle, and I sense that they are trying to change that after Brexit and Trump, but it may be too little too late.
Authoritarianism is a whole other beast and I feel it is gaining traction because more and more people don't get the concept of leadership within a democratic framework. Judging from the political realities around the globe, this is happening far more on the right than on the left. That doesn't mean it is not happening on the left, (Venezuela, anyone?) just that the assumptions in the twitterthread are not supported by data, unless you insist that Jacinda Arden is authoritarian, which is bullocks.
That all said, I came in here note that one of the insurrectionists from January 6th explained in court that "he felt he had gotten to know Trump from The Apprentice", and trusted him. That is so sad in so many ways. I mean, I suppose most people here find it laughable, and so do I to some extent, but that person's life is ruined and he almost killed a police officer. And American democracy.
posted by mumimor at 6:59 AM on October 20, 2021 [10 favorites]
Um, shaming might not as triumphant a strategy you think it is.
posted by amtho at 7:45 AM on October 20, 2021
posted by amtho at 7:45 AM on October 20, 2021
I have an indelible memory of an interaction I had with my (lovely, wonderful, absolutely brilliant) little sister when we were both in high school.
We were chilling out in the hot tub on the back porch. I'd just been arrested for the umpteenth time and we were talking about school stuff.
I said, "I think the hardest thing is to think for yourself."
She really blew her top and started yelling at me: "Most people don't WANT that!! WHY can't you just do what you're TOLD!! Not everybody wants to just think for themselves all the time - it just makes life HARDER!"
She is a brilliant physician and a very progressive person, but I reflect on this conversation often. It's helpful to me to remember that some people honestly enjoy being told what to do.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:56 AM on October 20, 2021 [11 favorites]
We were chilling out in the hot tub on the back porch. I'd just been arrested for the umpteenth time and we were talking about school stuff.
I said, "I think the hardest thing is to think for yourself."
She really blew her top and started yelling at me: "Most people don't WANT that!! WHY can't you just do what you're TOLD!! Not everybody wants to just think for themselves all the time - it just makes life HARDER!"
She is a brilliant physician and a very progressive person, but I reflect on this conversation often. It's helpful to me to remember that some people honestly enjoy being told what to do.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:56 AM on October 20, 2021 [11 favorites]
Most of us are busy doing normal stuff and don't want to spend our time examining the details of politics.
I'll go farther than that, and say that laypeople getting directly involved in politics has not created good outcomes. Politics is a job and a skill and the modern version of 'consultants' and 'unelected subteams' making political decisions (especially at the local level in the US) so that the elected can deny responsibility of the outcomes is bull. No wonder people look at that and choose authoritarianism, as long as it's for things they personally like.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:17 AM on October 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'll go farther than that, and say that laypeople getting directly involved in politics has not created good outcomes. Politics is a job and a skill and the modern version of 'consultants' and 'unelected subteams' making political decisions (especially at the local level in the US) so that the elected can deny responsibility of the outcomes is bull. No wonder people look at that and choose authoritarianism, as long as it's for things they personally like.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:17 AM on October 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
How are "modern version of 'consultants' and 'unelected subteams' making political decisions" related to "laypeople getting directly involved in politics" ? They seem like opposite things, but I'm reading your comment as implying equivalency or a positive link between them. Could you clarify please, The_Vegetables?
posted by amtho at 8:38 AM on October 20, 2021
posted by amtho at 8:38 AM on October 20, 2021
It's tiresome 'both sides' crap to say that the (US) left is just as prone to authoritarian tendencies as the right. It ain't fucking true. The only reason people try to make that claim is so that they can justify authoritarianism as normal.
So you don't think the left's current penchant for wanting to control what people read, write, watch, hear and say shows some authoritarian tendencies? I think it does and I have no interest in justifying authoritarianism. I actually think there are just a lot of people who don't deal well with gray areas (possibly relating to the judging vs perceiving personality trait?) regardless of political leanings and we tend to hear disproportionately from them since they are naturally the most passionate/rabid in their beliefs.
posted by Brain Sturgeon at 8:44 AM on October 20, 2021 [6 favorites]
So you don't think the left's current penchant for wanting to control what people read, write, watch, hear and say shows some authoritarian tendencies? I think it does and I have no interest in justifying authoritarianism. I actually think there are just a lot of people who don't deal well with gray areas (possibly relating to the judging vs perceiving personality trait?) regardless of political leanings and we tend to hear disproportionately from them since they are naturally the most passionate/rabid in their beliefs.
posted by Brain Sturgeon at 8:44 AM on October 20, 2021 [6 favorites]
How are "modern version of 'consultants' and 'unelected subteams' making political decisions" related to "laypeople getting directly involved in politics"
NIMBYs about housing would be an example of laypeople getting involved in politics who get to make political decisions about where housing should be located based on their own personal experience.
Consultants and committees are fine and necessary to get data - they should be making suggestions that the actual elected follow through with, not making actual political decisions. They are still 'laypeople' in that they aren't elected but are making laws with no required bias reporting or without having to identify conflicts of interest.
Most laws are written (at least originally) by lobbyists, not politicians.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:53 AM on October 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
NIMBYs about housing would be an example of laypeople getting involved in politics who get to make political decisions about where housing should be located based on their own personal experience.
Consultants and committees are fine and necessary to get data - they should be making suggestions that the actual elected follow through with, not making actual political decisions. They are still 'laypeople' in that they aren't elected but are making laws with no required bias reporting or without having to identify conflicts of interest.
Most laws are written (at least originally) by lobbyists, not politicians.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:53 AM on October 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
So you don't think the left's current penchant for wanting to control what people read, write, watch, hear and say shows some authoritarian tendencies?
What the fuck are you talking about?
posted by logicpunk at 9:00 AM on October 20, 2021 [16 favorites]
What the fuck are you talking about?
posted by logicpunk at 9:00 AM on October 20, 2021 [16 favorites]
I reflect on this conversation often. It's helpful to me to remember that some people honestly enjoy being told what to do.
I don’t necessarily dispute your conclusion as a general statement - I think there’s at least some to possibly a lot of truth to it. But I’m not convinced that it follows from the story given, where your sister, who was likely worried about you and negatively impacted by what you mention from your actions, and who it sounds like was just a teenager at the time and thus perhaps not able to make a super nuanced argument on these matters, rejected your claimed justification in obvious frustration. See also the new thread on freethinkers, which breaks down that argument with a degree of nuance and clarity that is usually lacking from such discussions or debates. Arguing against something where you have a fundamental disagreement on the framing, but the framing is implicit or somewhat hidden, is not something that most folks do particularly adeptly, let alone teenagers.
posted by eviemath at 9:17 AM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
I don’t necessarily dispute your conclusion as a general statement - I think there’s at least some to possibly a lot of truth to it. But I’m not convinced that it follows from the story given, where your sister, who was likely worried about you and negatively impacted by what you mention from your actions, and who it sounds like was just a teenager at the time and thus perhaps not able to make a super nuanced argument on these matters, rejected your claimed justification in obvious frustration. See also the new thread on freethinkers, which breaks down that argument with a degree of nuance and clarity that is usually lacking from such discussions or debates. Arguing against something where you have a fundamental disagreement on the framing, but the framing is implicit or somewhat hidden, is not something that most folks do particularly adeptly, let alone teenagers.
posted by eviemath at 9:17 AM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
the left's current penchant for wanting to control what people read, write, watch, hear and say
citation needed
posted by escape from the potato planet at 9:26 AM on October 20, 2021 [7 favorites]
citation needed
posted by escape from the potato planet at 9:26 AM on October 20, 2021 [7 favorites]
the left's current penchant for wanting to control what people read, write, watch, hear and say
Interesting take, as, from where I sit, it seems more like most on the left are about introducing accountability for abhorrent speech and behavior, rather than controlling what content others are allowed to consume or create.
posted by Lyme Drop at 9:36 AM on October 20, 2021 [12 favorites]
Interesting take, as, from where I sit, it seems more like most on the left are about introducing accountability for abhorrent speech and behavior, rather than controlling what content others are allowed to consume or create.
posted by Lyme Drop at 9:36 AM on October 20, 2021 [12 favorites]
the left's current penchant for wanting to control what people read, write, watch, hear and say
People think the left practicing the realities of the Paradox of Tolerance makes them intolerant. It doesn't. It means we don't break bread or do politics with people whose politics involve exclusion and removal of rights of others. Sorry, not sorry.
Karl Popper on the Paradox of Tolerance:
I feel like, if your political view is other people shouldn't get to vote, you should lose your right to vote, because fuck you and your self-important ass. You should live by those laws you want, right? Well, you wanted people denied voting rights, and you got it, fuckwit. If that's the left being intolerant then I'm Mickey Fucking Mouse.
posted by deadaluspark at 9:46 AM on October 20, 2021 [25 favorites]
People think the left practicing the realities of the Paradox of Tolerance makes them intolerant. It doesn't. It means we don't break bread or do politics with people whose politics involve exclusion and removal of rights of others. Sorry, not sorry.
Karl Popper on the Paradox of Tolerance:
"Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."Jean-Paul Sartre on arguing with anti-semites (fill in "anti-semite" with whatever obstinate jerk you prefer):
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."The two put together is where we are at. We are no longer able to have sound, rational arguments with the opposing side of the table because they have made clear they have no intent to act in good faith. Since they are acting in bad faith, we no longer have a responsibility to take their arguments at face value or give them breathing room. At that point, it is our responsibility to shut down misinformation and disinformation, which is officially where they are at, if they are acting in bad faith. It sucks, I don't want it to be here, but these people will shift goalposts and the only values they have are whatever benefits them at any moment (and a lot of that is based on what they THINK benefits them, and not what actually benefits them). So, if they're willing to change their entire fundamental moral outlook to benefit themselves, they obviously have no real morals or ethics to begin with, so why the fuck are we even letting them be part of the god damned conversation? We shouldn't, period.
I feel like, if your political view is other people shouldn't get to vote, you should lose your right to vote, because fuck you and your self-important ass. You should live by those laws you want, right? Well, you wanted people denied voting rights, and you got it, fuckwit. If that's the left being intolerant then I'm Mickey Fucking Mouse.
posted by deadaluspark at 9:46 AM on October 20, 2021 [25 favorites]
I am not expressing any opinion about whether it is warranted or not, but isn't the effort to have Netflix stop showing Chapelle's new video "controlling what content others are allowed to consume or create"? Isn't that the explicit definition of deplatforming?
posted by PhineasGage at 9:58 AM on October 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by PhineasGage at 9:58 AM on October 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
"We’re not in the truth-to-power business. We’re in the entertainment business."
-Netflix CEO Reed Hastings on removing an episode of Hasan Minhaj's Patriot Act.
Look, they've made clear their position. They'll pull episodes for authoritarian regimes. They're a corporation, so no excuses. They walked themselves into this.
If it's just entertainment, as Netflix argues, then what is lost if it's removed?
posted by deadaluspark at 10:06 AM on October 20, 2021 [7 favorites]
-Netflix CEO Reed Hastings on removing an episode of Hasan Minhaj's Patriot Act.
Look, they've made clear their position. They'll pull episodes for authoritarian regimes. They're a corporation, so no excuses. They walked themselves into this.
If it's just entertainment, as Netflix argues, then what is lost if it's removed?
posted by deadaluspark at 10:06 AM on October 20, 2021 [7 favorites]
No, because no one is being deprived of the ability to consume or create that content except on that platform. No one deserves a massive production and streaming company as a platform, least of all a mega-rich bigot.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:07 AM on October 20, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:07 AM on October 20, 2021 [13 favorites]
There’s a difference, especially with the Internet, between controlling what speech is accessible (censorship) and reducing the rewards available to some speech (deplatforming).
Since the money for production is limited, any paid performance has excluded others from that reward, so there’s not an obvious decrease in exclusion per se when one source is drplatformed.
posted by clew at 10:08 AM on October 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
Since the money for production is limited, any paid performance has excluded others from that reward, so there’s not an obvious decrease in exclusion per se when one source is drplatformed.
posted by clew at 10:08 AM on October 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
I'm talking about the tendency among a vocal subset of the left to, upon encountering some form of legal expression and finding it distasteful to, instead of saying "I don't like this/don't agree with it" and either explaining why or not, to also try to take steps to ensure that other people aren't exposed to that particular instance of expression.
I find it disingenous that people are asking me for examples when they abound literally everywhere including the front page of Metafilter right now. But here's one - leftists are increasingly demanding censorship of books in schools (the kind of thing that was completely the milieu of pearl-clutching fundies as recently as a few years ago). Things like to Kill A Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men because, as books written decades ago, they don't fit current social mores, and the people wanting them banned don't trust that children can be taught and understand the context within the time period they were written.
it seems more like most on the left are about introducing accountability for abhorrent speech and behavior, rather than controlling what content others are allowed to consume or create
This is definitely a you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to situation. In my view, there is certainly a lot of awful expression in the world that I have no interest in engaging with or promoting, but as long as no one was physically hurt by its creation (e.g. child porn, snuff films, animal torture, which we already have laws against and rightly so), I think it's every individual's right to decide whether they want to engage with something or not. By all means, give your opinion, recommend against it, call the creator every name in the book, but restricting access and censoring is another thing entirely.
I will say that, in the U.S., self-appointed culture czars on the left are not nearly the level of a problem that, say anti-abortion actual legislation by the right is but one only has to look at China to see that authoritarianism is most definitely a tendency on the left as well as the right. Anyone who says otherwise is being willfully ignorant.
posted by Brain Sturgeon at 10:09 AM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
I find it disingenous that people are asking me for examples when they abound literally everywhere including the front page of Metafilter right now. But here's one - leftists are increasingly demanding censorship of books in schools (the kind of thing that was completely the milieu of pearl-clutching fundies as recently as a few years ago). Things like to Kill A Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men because, as books written decades ago, they don't fit current social mores, and the people wanting them banned don't trust that children can be taught and understand the context within the time period they were written.
it seems more like most on the left are about introducing accountability for abhorrent speech and behavior, rather than controlling what content others are allowed to consume or create
This is definitely a you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to situation. In my view, there is certainly a lot of awful expression in the world that I have no interest in engaging with or promoting, but as long as no one was physically hurt by its creation (e.g. child porn, snuff films, animal torture, which we already have laws against and rightly so), I think it's every individual's right to decide whether they want to engage with something or not. By all means, give your opinion, recommend against it, call the creator every name in the book, but restricting access and censoring is another thing entirely.
I will say that, in the U.S., self-appointed culture czars on the left are not nearly the level of a problem that, say anti-abortion actual legislation by the right is but one only has to look at China to see that authoritarianism is most definitely a tendency on the left as well as the right. Anyone who says otherwise is being willfully ignorant.
posted by Brain Sturgeon at 10:09 AM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
leftists are increasingly demanding censorship of books in schools
Citation needed for pretty much every adjective and verb in this sentence.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:15 AM on October 20, 2021 [11 favorites]
Citation needed for pretty much every adjective and verb in this sentence.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:15 AM on October 20, 2021 [11 favorites]
Like, everything I've seen about increasing demands for censorship are about critical race theory being taught in elementary school and rants about how there's an insidious agenda to brainwash kids into sin and genital mutilation. Not only that, I'm pretty sure most of them are not just on the right, but are in fact GOP operatives and/or activists for bigoted causes.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:18 AM on October 20, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:18 AM on October 20, 2021 [9 favorites]
Things like to Kill A Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men
Yeah I'm gonna need a lot more proof than one or two examples of this. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I know it does, mostly with young people whose hearts are in the right place but lack the historical context to understand that they're negatively impacting discourse. It happens, but it doesn't largely represent the left like you're implying it does.
I'm talking about the tendency among a vocal subset of the left to
So if it's a small vocal subset, why do you give so much of a shit?
posted by deadaluspark at 10:19 AM on October 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
Yeah I'm gonna need a lot more proof than one or two examples of this. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I know it does, mostly with young people whose hearts are in the right place but lack the historical context to understand that they're negatively impacting discourse. It happens, but it doesn't largely represent the left like you're implying it does.
I'm talking about the tendency among a vocal subset of the left to
So if it's a small vocal subset, why do you give so much of a shit?
posted by deadaluspark at 10:19 AM on October 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
Oh come on. There are plenty of examples of censoriousness from the Left. Everyone on Metafilter remembers this: "6 Dr. Seuss books won’t be published for racist images." Let's at least have an honest discussion here.
posted by PhineasGage at 10:22 AM on October 20, 2021
posted by PhineasGage at 10:22 AM on October 20, 2021
Yep, that amazing example of "the left" being the Dr. Seuss Enterprises choice to stop publishing and selling those books.
“Dr. Seuss Enterprises listened and took feedback from our audiences including teachers, academics and specialists in the field as part of our review process. We then worked with a panel of experts, including educators, to review our catalog of titles,” it said.
Sure sounds like "the left" to me! Darn teachers, academics and specialists, experts are all leftists!
posted by deadaluspark at 10:25 AM on October 20, 2021 [18 favorites]
“Dr. Seuss Enterprises listened and took feedback from our audiences including teachers, academics and specialists in the field as part of our review process. We then worked with a panel of experts, including educators, to review our catalog of titles,” it said.
Sure sounds like "the left" to me! Darn teachers, academics and specialists, experts are all leftists!
posted by deadaluspark at 10:25 AM on October 20, 2021 [18 favorites]
Also lets be fair to this argument:
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Reasons: Banned and challenged for racial slurs and their negative effect on students, featuring a “white savior” character, and its perception of the Black experience
A white savior and a white persons view of black experience are two pretty fucking good reasons to dump it as required reading. I wouldn't ban it, but I see the rationale.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:28 AM on October 20, 2021
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Reasons: Banned and challenged for racial slurs and their negative effect on students, featuring a “white savior” character, and its perception of the Black experience
A white savior and a white persons view of black experience are two pretty fucking good reasons to dump it as required reading. I wouldn't ban it, but I see the rationale.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:28 AM on October 20, 2021
Requested citation
So, first of all: those two books have been challenged for decades. I don't see anything about (1) an increase in requests to ban, (2) demands from "leftists" (instead of, say concerned Black families or survivors of sexual assault), or (3) that every request is a demand to censor the book. As far as I can tell, a lot of the challenges are requests to remove books from required reading rather than taken off shelves.
Second of all, every other book on that list was being challenged by bigots, often because it made a point to call out bigotry.
Oh come on. There are plenty of examples of censoriousness from the Left. Everyone on Metafilter remembers this: "6 Dr. Seuss books won’t be published for racist images." Let's at least have an honest discussion here.
You mean the situation where the publishers and Seuss' family consulted with a wide group of people including educators and came to the decision all on their own to not publish those works? Or where the single example of the book being "banned" was from right-wing nutjobs?
Yes, please tell me more about being honest and your good-faith examples.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:29 AM on October 20, 2021 [16 favorites]
So, first of all: those two books have been challenged for decades. I don't see anything about (1) an increase in requests to ban, (2) demands from "leftists" (instead of, say concerned Black families or survivors of sexual assault), or (3) that every request is a demand to censor the book. As far as I can tell, a lot of the challenges are requests to remove books from required reading rather than taken off shelves.
Second of all, every other book on that list was being challenged by bigots, often because it made a point to call out bigotry.
Oh come on. There are plenty of examples of censoriousness from the Left. Everyone on Metafilter remembers this: "6 Dr. Seuss books won’t be published for racist images." Let's at least have an honest discussion here.
You mean the situation where the publishers and Seuss' family consulted with a wide group of people including educators and came to the decision all on their own to not publish those works? Or where the single example of the book being "banned" was from right-wing nutjobs?
Yes, please tell me more about being honest and your good-faith examples.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:29 AM on October 20, 2021 [16 favorites]
I said a vocal subset, not necessarily a small one. I give a shit because I think wanting that kind of control over the expression people consume is illiberal and honestly kind of terrifying because who is going to be the final arbiter of all these moral judgements and what if they're wrong about some things?
Y'all aren't really making the case that leftists can't be authoritarian, you're just making the case that when they're authoritarian, they are right to be so. And that's okay - it's a legitimate point of view, even if I disagree with it. Like I said upthread, a good portion of people have difficulties handling things that aren't black and white and that's just the way they are.
posted by Brain Sturgeon at 10:33 AM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
Y'all aren't really making the case that leftists can't be authoritarian, you're just making the case that when they're authoritarian, they are right to be so. And that's okay - it's a legitimate point of view, even if I disagree with it. Like I said upthread, a good portion of people have difficulties handling things that aren't black and white and that's just the way they are.
posted by Brain Sturgeon at 10:33 AM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
You haven't proven anyone's authoritarian tendencies. If anything you've given us a chance to demonstrate that, unlike the right, "the left" is actually refraining from using authoritarian powers of the state and has instead chose to make the argument that the market decides.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:40 AM on October 20, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 10:40 AM on October 20, 2021 [7 favorites]
But wouldn't the idea that being authoritarian is always bad also kinda be an example of black and white thinking?
posted by sohalt at 10:42 AM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by sohalt at 10:42 AM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
I'm sure my descriptors of the following statement I'm about to make are messy but: it does seem to me that there's authoritarianism as a value and authoritarianism as a practice to enforce a set of values are two different things. As a predisposition I've already made my point earlier. As a practice, therefore, I'm more interested to interrogate what values it's enforcing (i.e. the paradox of tolerance, which i agree with at the societal/communal level). It's when we're talking both practice and value interchangeably is when the discussion goes into gotcha territory fast.
If submitting to authority is a key dimension of authoritarianism as a political value, then i don't see it as bad per se, because living in society requires a certain amount of loss of your personal authority. But that's just another way to describe the fact that the state has a unique monopoly to violence, imo, or at least in the same realm of the social compact of compromises we make to live in a society.
Having the desire to follow authority isn't the problem, especially since we're nowhere past our anthropological stage of organising ourselves by hierarchy. It's just what are the principles we've agreed to be led by.
posted by cendawanita at 10:51 AM on October 20, 2021 [8 favorites]
If submitting to authority is a key dimension of authoritarianism as a political value, then i don't see it as bad per se, because living in society requires a certain amount of loss of your personal authority. But that's just another way to describe the fact that the state has a unique monopoly to violence, imo, or at least in the same realm of the social compact of compromises we make to live in a society.
Having the desire to follow authority isn't the problem, especially since we're nowhere past our anthropological stage of organising ourselves by hierarchy. It's just what are the principles we've agreed to be led by.
posted by cendawanita at 10:51 AM on October 20, 2021 [8 favorites]
Y'all aren't really making the case that leftists can't be authoritarian,
like, the comment you hopped in to respond to said the US left is not as prone to authoritarianism as the right, not that there was zero authoritarianism on the left. my point was that staking out a position that emphasizes that both sides include subgroups with authoritarian tendencies 1) ignores that the right engages in it more enthusiastically, and 2)gives them license to crank it up to 11.
you say that cancel culture or whatever you want to call it isn't as bad as the actual people in power trying to roll back abortion rights or restrict voting, but then you're right back in there arguing that authoritarianism is a feature of both left and right. these are different by orders of magnitude, and you know it.
posted by logicpunk at 10:54 AM on October 20, 2021 [8 favorites]
like, the comment you hopped in to respond to said the US left is not as prone to authoritarianism as the right, not that there was zero authoritarianism on the left. my point was that staking out a position that emphasizes that both sides include subgroups with authoritarian tendencies 1) ignores that the right engages in it more enthusiastically, and 2)gives them license to crank it up to 11.
you say that cancel culture or whatever you want to call it isn't as bad as the actual people in power trying to roll back abortion rights or restrict voting, but then you're right back in there arguing that authoritarianism is a feature of both left and right. these are different by orders of magnitude, and you know it.
posted by logicpunk at 10:54 AM on October 20, 2021 [8 favorites]
The conversation re 'censorship' feels like it's fast collapsing into "authoritarianism is when people do things"...
posted by dusty potato at 10:59 AM on October 20, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by dusty potato at 10:59 AM on October 20, 2021 [7 favorites]
As it turns out, the demands from trans Netflix employees doesn't include asking for the special to be removed:
Netflix trans employees and allies release a list of demands ahead of the walkout
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:14 AM on October 20, 2021 [19 favorites]
Netflix trans employees and allies release a list of demands ahead of the walkout
While the conversation has become mired in a “culture wars” dispute over censorship and hate speech, none of the demands involve taking down the comedy special. Employees want Netflix to allow the trans ERG to take on a bigger role in internal conversations surrounding potentially harmful content, hire trans and nonbinary executives, and eliminate imagery of transphobic content in the office.So that's another dishonest "cancel-culture run amok" talking point busted.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 11:14 AM on October 20, 2021 [19 favorites]
Glegrinof the Pig-Man : Authoritarian personality: "a personality pattern characterized by strict adherence to highly simplified conventional values, an attitude of great deference to authority figures while demanding subservience from those regarded as lower in status, and hostility toward people who deviate from conventional moral prescriptions."
I mean this is demonstrated on Metafilter, Twitter, etc. nearly every day - I don't know what else there is to prove in terms of leftists sometimes tending toward the authoritarian.
sohalt: I see your point. Like, I'm totally willing to defer to an authority who insists we all get vaccinated for the greater good. No issues there. But authoritarianism is also defined by it's extreme-ness and complete unwillingness to question authority which I think is almost always pretty bad.
logicpunk: I guess we agree then? Both the left and the right are just as prone to authoritarian tendencies but the authoritarian tendencies of those on the right are currently a more immediate danger to our society. That, to me, doesn't indicate that the left's authoritarian tendencies are totally harmless or that they shouldn't be discussed. I find the Left's general unwillingness to speak of or even it admit to its own hypocrisies pretty authoritarian in nature, actually.
Going to give this a rest now since I'm obviously arguing into the wind and have other things to do with my life but, damn, I wish this place was a little more self-aware (or maybe just honest) sometimes.
posted by Brain Sturgeon at 11:42 AM on October 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
I mean this is demonstrated on Metafilter, Twitter, etc. nearly every day - I don't know what else there is to prove in terms of leftists sometimes tending toward the authoritarian.
sohalt: I see your point. Like, I'm totally willing to defer to an authority who insists we all get vaccinated for the greater good. No issues there. But authoritarianism is also defined by it's extreme-ness and complete unwillingness to question authority which I think is almost always pretty bad.
logicpunk: I guess we agree then? Both the left and the right are just as prone to authoritarian tendencies but the authoritarian tendencies of those on the right are currently a more immediate danger to our society. That, to me, doesn't indicate that the left's authoritarian tendencies are totally harmless or that they shouldn't be discussed. I find the Left's general unwillingness to speak of or even it admit to its own hypocrisies pretty authoritarian in nature, actually.
Going to give this a rest now since I'm obviously arguing into the wind and have other things to do with my life but, damn, I wish this place was a little more self-aware (or maybe just honest) sometimes.
posted by Brain Sturgeon at 11:42 AM on October 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
/chucks an apple into this thread, labeled "To The Least Authoritarian"/
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 1:03 PM on October 20, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 1:03 PM on October 20, 2021 [10 favorites]
Y'all are being silly with this "leftists are authoritarian TOO" stuff. Nothing on metafilter, up to and including mods deleting comments, can possibly be described as "authoritarian."
posted by Baby_Balrog at 1:58 PM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Baby_Balrog at 1:58 PM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
There is a vast difference between these two things:
1. "I believe that the state should legally forbid the dissemination of particular works, viewpoints, and authors, and should employ its monopoly on violence to enforce that censorship."
vs.,
2. "I am going to exercise my own freedoms of speech, association, and consumer choice to withhold my support (financial and otherwise) from works and authors which I find objectionable, to encourage others to do the same, and to apply financial and PR pressure to media companies, conferences, etc. to withhold their platform from said works and authors."
If you're pointing at #2, and saying "THAT'S AUTHORITARIANISM!!1" – then you are being disingenuous. They aren't remotely the same thing, and you know it.
#1 is how we get book burnings, political prisoners, and secret police.
#2 is...literally just people exercising the rights that everyone has, under any reasonable definition of liberalism. It's not censorship. It's not a First Amendment issue. It's not "cancel culture". It's large numbers of individual people deciding:
"Hey, I'm not going to spend my money on X."
"Hey, I'm going to encourage other people not to spend their money on X."
"Hey, I'm going to tell XYZ Corp. that I won't do business with them until they stop supporting X."
That's it. That's literally all it is.
To call that "authoritarian" is, frankly, offensive to people who have suffered and died under actual authoritarianism. Please get that shit out of here.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 2:21 PM on October 20, 2021 [19 favorites]
1. "I believe that the state should legally forbid the dissemination of particular works, viewpoints, and authors, and should employ its monopoly on violence to enforce that censorship."
vs.,
2. "I am going to exercise my own freedoms of speech, association, and consumer choice to withhold my support (financial and otherwise) from works and authors which I find objectionable, to encourage others to do the same, and to apply financial and PR pressure to media companies, conferences, etc. to withhold their platform from said works and authors."
If you're pointing at #2, and saying "THAT'S AUTHORITARIANISM!!1" – then you are being disingenuous. They aren't remotely the same thing, and you know it.
#1 is how we get book burnings, political prisoners, and secret police.
#2 is...literally just people exercising the rights that everyone has, under any reasonable definition of liberalism. It's not censorship. It's not a First Amendment issue. It's not "cancel culture". It's large numbers of individual people deciding:
"Hey, I'm not going to spend my money on X."
"Hey, I'm going to encourage other people not to spend their money on X."
"Hey, I'm going to tell XYZ Corp. that I won't do business with them until they stop supporting X."
That's it. That's literally all it is.
To call that "authoritarian" is, frankly, offensive to people who have suffered and died under actual authoritarianism. Please get that shit out of here.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 2:21 PM on October 20, 2021 [19 favorites]
one only has to look at China to see that authoritarianism is most definitely a tendency on the left
You seem to have a misunderstanding of the term "the left", at least as regards any sort of international standards of definition or discussion. (I know its use by Republicans in the US is quite different and includes basically any competing power centers who they don't secretly admire, like Putin's regime in Russia.)
posted by eviemath at 2:51 PM on October 20, 2021 [6 favorites]
You seem to have a misunderstanding of the term "the left", at least as regards any sort of international standards of definition or discussion. (I know its use by Republicans in the US is quite different and includes basically any competing power centers who they don't secretly admire, like Putin's regime in Russia.)
posted by eviemath at 2:51 PM on October 20, 2021 [6 favorites]
Interesting discussion. This is very much not my area of expertise, but a quick search suggests that authoritianism is not equally distributed among Americans:
The mean authoritarian score of strong Trump approvers is more than twice that of strong Trump disapprovers across the board. Link
posted by soylent00FF00 at 2:55 PM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
The mean authoritarian score of strong Trump approvers is more than twice that of strong Trump disapprovers across the board. Link
posted by soylent00FF00 at 2:55 PM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
Authoritarian personality: "a personality pattern characterized by strict adherence to highly simplified conventional values, an attitude of great deference to authority figures while demanding subservience from those regarded as lower in status, and hostility toward people who deviate from conventional moral prescriptions."
Sooo... your claim seems to be that trans folks, maybe trans employees at Netflix in particular, have highly simplified values, have what could be considered conventional values or moral prescriptions, are in positions of authority, and are higher in status than (checks notes) Dave Chapelle or the CEO of Netflix?
Are you also arguing that gravity is authoritarian, because why should you be bound and constrained by physical reality. Gosh darn it, if you believe the Earth is flat, then it's censorship if you take a couple plane flights that circumnavigate the globe?
posted by eviemath at 2:58 PM on October 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
Sooo... your claim seems to be that trans folks, maybe trans employees at Netflix in particular, have highly simplified values, have what could be considered conventional values or moral prescriptions, are in positions of authority, and are higher in status than (checks notes) Dave Chapelle or the CEO of Netflix?
Are you also arguing that gravity is authoritarian, because why should you be bound and constrained by physical reality. Gosh darn it, if you believe the Earth is flat, then it's censorship if you take a couple plane flights that circumnavigate the globe?
posted by eviemath at 2:58 PM on October 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
With respect to authoritarianism vs. libertarianism, though is #2 any different from anti-gay bigots claiming it's their personal choice not to make cakes for gay weddings? Or racists claiming a personal freedom not to associate with people of other races? I think most of us are probably fine with the idea that it's an appropriate use of state authority to deny small business owners the right to discriminate against minorities they don't like, because that use of authority protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
I feel like a lot of people here are hung up on the idea that authoritarianism=bad, leftism=good, therefore left-wing politics are necessarily not authoritarian. It's more complicated than that. Most people on the left side of the political spectrum, aside from hardcore left-libertarians, do generally think that limited use of state authority in regulating the behavior of individuals has an appropriate place in our systems of government. Where the left and right differ is most significantly in what ways it is appropriate to use state authority to limit or compel the actions of individuals, and secondarily to what extent it is appropriate to do so. (At least in the US and I think also UK, the political right has shifted far more authoritarian, commensurate with its slide towards fascism. The only similarly authoritarian political stance on the left would be traditional communism, which is pretty thin on the ground in the anglosphere.)
I think we should be highly suspicious and cautious about authoritarian political ideologies in general, but also honest with ourselves about when we are in fact prepared to accept authoritarian impulses as serving other political goals.
posted by biogeo at 3:03 PM on October 20, 2021 [9 favorites]
I feel like a lot of people here are hung up on the idea that authoritarianism=bad, leftism=good, therefore left-wing politics are necessarily not authoritarian. It's more complicated than that. Most people on the left side of the political spectrum, aside from hardcore left-libertarians, do generally think that limited use of state authority in regulating the behavior of individuals has an appropriate place in our systems of government. Where the left and right differ is most significantly in what ways it is appropriate to use state authority to limit or compel the actions of individuals, and secondarily to what extent it is appropriate to do so. (At least in the US and I think also UK, the political right has shifted far more authoritarian, commensurate with its slide towards fascism. The only similarly authoritarian political stance on the left would be traditional communism, which is pretty thin on the ground in the anglosphere.)
I think we should be highly suspicious and cautious about authoritarian political ideologies in general, but also honest with ourselves about when we are in fact prepared to accept authoritarian impulses as serving other political goals.
posted by biogeo at 3:03 PM on October 20, 2021 [9 favorites]
I think it will also be helpful to distinguish state authority versus mass action (boycotts, public shaming, etc.). Both may have the function of either compelling or constraining specific types of individual choices, but they're very different mechanisms. And like state authority, mass action is a tool that can be wielded for a wide range of political goals (in addition to being a political stance itself). I think some people here are using "authoritarian" to refer to both tools, because they both have the goal of compelling or constraining individuals' behaviors. I wouldn't say that's wrong, but conflating the two is unhelpful. I think a perfectly reasonable argument can be made that mass action can be just as dangerous as state authority: a lot of the anti-communist agitation on the Right during the Cold War still affects us today, even if much of it was undertaken without explicit government action. But the argument that there's a problem with mass action undertaken to call out and deplatform someone like Dave Chappelle is quite different from the argument that there's a problem with government action to censor Dave Chappelle, even if the end result may be similar. I think it's helpful to be clear about this difference.
posted by biogeo at 3:34 PM on October 20, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 3:34 PM on October 20, 2021 [9 favorites]
“Authoritarian personality” research is kind of interesting in how many people it seems to reveal to be willing to say the quiet part loud, you know. But I can’t help but feel like a lot of authoritarianism is really situational. I have no difficulty acknowledging that I have become more authoritarian in my impulses in recent years, coming from the left. I’d be perfectly happy to see the power of the state brought to bear for real to implement COVID-related public health measures, for example. I mean I am capable of understanding intellectually that there’s a limit to what can be done without conflicting with my values, but emotionally I’d feel pretty good just to see the government make people do (or not do) things in this moment!
For me I think it’s pretty straightforwardly a manifestation of political frustration, but it’s not hard to admit the appeal.
posted by atoxyl at 3:39 PM on October 20, 2021 [9 favorites]
For me I think it’s pretty straightforwardly a manifestation of political frustration, but it’s not hard to admit the appeal.
posted by atoxyl at 3:39 PM on October 20, 2021 [9 favorites]
I grew up in an right-wing, authoritarian, U.S. evangelical subculture, and several of the defining characteristics of authoritarians noted in the OP resonate with me.
"Authoritarians prioritise strongly conformity, homogeneity." Checks out. "Authoritarians shun (dismiss) complexity and are drawn to simple solutions." No lies detected. "Also: you can't "win arguments" with authoritarians - there is no "winning the argument" on their values, because their values are fixed?" True that.
I'd add that authoritarians reject the label of authoritarian because authoritarianism has negative connotations. Authoritarians know that they they are unequivocally good and right, and are hostile to anyone who anyone who does not acknowledge their moral superiority.
posted by lumpy at 3:42 PM on October 20, 2021 [6 favorites]
"Authoritarians prioritise strongly conformity, homogeneity." Checks out. "Authoritarians shun (dismiss) complexity and are drawn to simple solutions." No lies detected. "Also: you can't "win arguments" with authoritarians - there is no "winning the argument" on their values, because their values are fixed?" True that.
I'd add that authoritarians reject the label of authoritarian because authoritarianism has negative connotations. Authoritarians know that they they are unequivocally good and right, and are hostile to anyone who anyone who does not acknowledge their moral superiority.
posted by lumpy at 3:42 PM on October 20, 2021 [6 favorites]
is #2 any different from anti-gay bigots claiming it's their personal choice not to make cakes for gay weddings?
Yes, I think it is. Businesses refusing to serve particular demographics (who are defined by inborn traits, and already marginalized) makes it harder for those folks to exist in society. We rightly recognize that such policies are antisocial.
It's a case where the state constrains the freedoms of the individual (to pick and choose their business involvements), in order to protect the freedoms of society at large (to not live as de facto second-class citizens).
If we're going to define "authoritarianism" as "any time the state constrains a person's behavior, in any way, for any reason", then we've stretched the word "authoritarian" so much that it's almost meaningless.
Sure – defenders of homophobic discrimination would argue that it's LGBT folks who are engaged in antisocial behavior. But that is, transparently, a bad-faith argument (based, as it is, in bigoted bullshit).
I understand the impulse to view the question from a neutral, even-handed perspective – but it's possible to take that approach too far. If it precludes you from exercising your own judgment of truth ("hey, this bakery owner is misrepresenting the facts when they claim that homosexuality is [a choice | an abomination unto some invisible being | harming children]"), or of morality ("hey, allowing this behavior will lead to a particular class of people living as second-class citizens, and that's not okay"), then you've handed a win to anyone who's willing to disregard truth and morality. That posture becomes an automatic "get out of jail free" card.
We're not going to find a political philosophy which (1) precludes the state from ever constraining individual behavior (it what sense would it even be "the state"?), and (2) ensures a reasonable degree of liberty and equality for all citizens.
(Anarchists, particularly those of a voluntarist inclination, would obviously disagree.)
It will always be necessary to sacrifice some individual "freedoms" – because the exercise of those "freedoms" would lead, inevitably, to a greater evil.
So, yeah. I don't consider "prohibiting cake-based discrimination" to be "authoritarianism", for the same reason that I don't consider "prohibiting the sale of rocket launchers", "prohibiting people from parking their car in the middle of the street", or "prohibiting the shouting of 'fire!' in a crowded theater" to be authoritarianism.
Defenders of cake-based discrimination would obviously attack this logic from all sorts of angles, but you'll find that their arguments are in bad faith. This is what I mean when I say that you need to engage your own judgments of truth and morality. Otherwise, literally anyone can invoke the mantra of "but my freedom!", with any kind of specious justification, for basically anything.
It's a mistake to let them get away with that gambit – they'll ride it as far as it'll take them. (Up to, and including, actual authoritarianism.) As the saying goes: keep an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out.
Or racists claiming a personal freedom not to associate with people of other races?
This is offensive bullshit, but it don't see what it has to do with authoritarianism. I don't see anyone on "the left" (or elsewhere) arguing that the state should compel racists to associate with people of other races.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 4:38 AM on October 21, 2021 [9 favorites]
Yes, I think it is. Businesses refusing to serve particular demographics (who are defined by inborn traits, and already marginalized) makes it harder for those folks to exist in society. We rightly recognize that such policies are antisocial.
It's a case where the state constrains the freedoms of the individual (to pick and choose their business involvements), in order to protect the freedoms of society at large (to not live as de facto second-class citizens).
If we're going to define "authoritarianism" as "any time the state constrains a person's behavior, in any way, for any reason", then we've stretched the word "authoritarian" so much that it's almost meaningless.
Sure – defenders of homophobic discrimination would argue that it's LGBT folks who are engaged in antisocial behavior. But that is, transparently, a bad-faith argument (based, as it is, in bigoted bullshit).
I understand the impulse to view the question from a neutral, even-handed perspective – but it's possible to take that approach too far. If it precludes you from exercising your own judgment of truth ("hey, this bakery owner is misrepresenting the facts when they claim that homosexuality is [a choice | an abomination unto some invisible being | harming children]"), or of morality ("hey, allowing this behavior will lead to a particular class of people living as second-class citizens, and that's not okay"), then you've handed a win to anyone who's willing to disregard truth and morality. That posture becomes an automatic "get out of jail free" card.
We're not going to find a political philosophy which (1) precludes the state from ever constraining individual behavior (it what sense would it even be "the state"?), and (2) ensures a reasonable degree of liberty and equality for all citizens.
(Anarchists, particularly those of a voluntarist inclination, would obviously disagree.)
It will always be necessary to sacrifice some individual "freedoms" – because the exercise of those "freedoms" would lead, inevitably, to a greater evil.
So, yeah. I don't consider "prohibiting cake-based discrimination" to be "authoritarianism", for the same reason that I don't consider "prohibiting the sale of rocket launchers", "prohibiting people from parking their car in the middle of the street", or "prohibiting the shouting of 'fire!' in a crowded theater" to be authoritarianism.
Defenders of cake-based discrimination would obviously attack this logic from all sorts of angles, but you'll find that their arguments are in bad faith. This is what I mean when I say that you need to engage your own judgments of truth and morality. Otherwise, literally anyone can invoke the mantra of "but my freedom!", with any kind of specious justification, for basically anything.
It's a mistake to let them get away with that gambit – they'll ride it as far as it'll take them. (Up to, and including, actual authoritarianism.) As the saying goes: keep an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out.
Or racists claiming a personal freedom not to associate with people of other races?
This is offensive bullshit, but it don't see what it has to do with authoritarianism. I don't see anyone on "the left" (or elsewhere) arguing that the state should compel racists to associate with people of other races.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 4:38 AM on October 21, 2021 [9 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted; there is some Slate-contrarian "ah but what if upside-down-world, huh???" rhetorical posturing going on here if you're using famous civil rights actions as some kind of glib gotcha example of authoritarianism. This is your warning that it needs to stop.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:45 AM on October 21, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:45 AM on October 21, 2021 [3 favorites]
If we're going to define "authoritarianism" as "any time the state constrains a person's behavior, in any way, for any reason", then we've stretched the word "authoritarian" so much that it's almost meaningless.
I think we've found the crux of the disagreement, because in my mind this is the plain literal meaning of "authoritarian" in the context of political philosophy. "Authoritarianism" is slightly more vague but refers to a general belief in the validity or correctness of authoritarian action, and a willingness to use it as a tool of first resort to achieve political goals. I would say, for example, that I am not an authoritarian in general, and indeed I would go farther and say that in general I am anti-authoritarian, in that I believe the use of state authority to constrain or compel individual behavior is something we should be deeply suspicious of, reach for only when other options are not available, and continue questioning whenever we do use it. However I am not universally anti-authoritarian, or in other words in some specific cases I am prepared to endorse an authoritarian approach, when other good options for protecting civil rights don't exist, for example to prevent bigoted business owners from refusing to serve members of a persecuted minority.
If I understand your position correctly, you believe that whether a particular political action or belief constitutes authoritarianism depends not only on whether there is the use of state authority to constrain or compel individual behavior, but also on whether that use of authority is just. I don't think your definition is wrong, but I do think it is prone to confusing things. Because while the question of whether a given state action constitutes a use of authority to constrain or compel individuals is reasonably objective, the question of whether such use is justified is much more subjective. Personally I think it's valuable to have a clear, objective definition of "authoritarian," as it makes it easier to identify what's wrong when people try to make the argument that "woke leftists" who are "cancelling" people like Dave Chappelle are actually authoritarians in the same way that fascists who want to control women's bodies, deport minorities, and otherwise control our lives are. I understand that because "authoritarian" has a strongly negative connotation in left-leaning politics (as it well should!), it may be uncomfortable to apply my definition and state that in some limited contexts we are prepared to be authoritarian, with caveats, and in spaces with bad-faith right-wing actors it obviously opens things for them to rhetorically twist the term to their own ends and should be avoided. But within our own minds at least I think it's helpful to be clear-minded about this. The only ones among us who are completely anti-authoritarian in all cases are the anarchists (indeed that's what defines them), and most of us aren't anarchists.
I understand the impulse to view the question from a neutral, even-handed perspective – but it's possible to take that approach too far. If it precludes you from exercising your own judgment of truth ("hey, this bakery owner is misrepresenting the facts when they claim that homosexuality is [a choice | an abomination unto some invisible being | harming children]"), or of morality ("hey, allowing this behavior will lead to a particular class of people living as second-class citizens, and that's not okay"), then you've handed a win to anyone who's willing to disregard truth and morality. That posture becomes an automatic "get out of jail free" card.
Just to be completely clear, I don't think this precludes me from exercising my own judgment of truth at all. My argument is that we can label state compulsion on bigoted bakers as a form of authoritarian action while also believing that it is entirely justified for all the reasons you've given. However I think the value of clearly labeling such action as authoritarian is that it forces us to remind ourselves that there has to be a high threshold for it to be justified, and we need to constantly be vigilant when we choose to use it that we're doing so justly.
posted by biogeo at 11:54 AM on October 21, 2021 [5 favorites]
I am also aware that this has become a discussion about semantics, and while I think semantics are important, they're important largely for the way they help us cleave the space of ideas at its joints. I think it's important to have terminology that clearly distinguishes state versus non-state compulsion, and is applied independently of whether that use of authority is justified. If someone thinks a term other than "authoritarian" is a better fit for this need I'm open to it, but this is at least my understanding of its plain meaning in this context.
posted by biogeo at 12:01 PM on October 21, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by biogeo at 12:01 PM on October 21, 2021 [1 favorite]
Claiming that the Chinese Communist Party is not part of “the left” sounds a bit like no-true-Scotsmanning.
posted by acb at 2:40 PM on October 21, 2021
posted by acb at 2:40 PM on October 21, 2021
Claiming that the Chinese Communist Party is not part of “the left” sounds a bit like no-true-Scotsmanning.
Only if you think that because “national socialism” has socialism in the name, it must also be leftist? Or that the current Putin regime in Russia must be on the left, because Putin used to work for the KGB back in the old USSR?
posted by eviemath at 3:13 PM on October 21, 2021 [1 favorite]
Only if you think that because “national socialism” has socialism in the name, it must also be leftist? Or that the current Putin regime in Russia must be on the left, because Putin used to work for the KGB back in the old USSR?
posted by eviemath at 3:13 PM on October 21, 2021 [1 favorite]
If you go beyond the superficial name, there is a serious discussion to be had about whether the economic system or policies of the current Chinese government count as leftist - in some ways it is, but in many ways (poor labor rights, having a differentiated economic class structure, allowing capital ownership by individuals) it is not. And when not used to describe economic systems or policy, “left” generally refers to being progressive on social justice issues, which the Chinese government decidedly is not.
posted by eviemath at 3:26 PM on October 21, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 3:26 PM on October 21, 2021 [3 favorites]
For what it's worth, some of my Chinese friends describe the politics in their birth country as "left-wing." I wouldn't claim they're a representative sample, and there are plenty of people here on Metafilter with more informed opinions on the topic than mine, but at least some people who grew up in China under the CCP still think of it as a Leftist government. (At least some of them are people who are also very critical of the Chinese government for its human rights abuses and poor record on social justice. One of these friends in particular is someone who is extremely well-read and keeps herself informed, so I trust her description of the CCP as politically Left not to be a naive opinion.) Personally I think this is a good case in point that the Left-Right political axis is defined more by a loose collection of locally-applicable political distinctions rather than any coherent philosophical difference.
posted by biogeo at 9:15 PM on October 21, 2021
posted by biogeo at 9:15 PM on October 21, 2021
It's hard for me to really think of the CCP as the "left" anymore, just as it was hard to think of Communist Russia as the "left" when they stopped, you know, actually taking care of their people and being more worried about enforcing groupthink in a sorry attempt to force leftists politics.
To me, that's where you distinctly have pulled away from leftism, because to me leftism has always been defined by democracy of the workplace and workers and individuals having greater political control over their own destinies.
China has not been a country "for the worker" in a long time, no matter how much they try to present themselves as such. You don't get to have forced labor camps for minorities and say you support the workers.
Like, I get what your Chinese friends are saying, the CCP was literally born of leftism... but the CCP of today is a bunch of selfish fucking toadies who do nothing but amass wealth and power among themselves while leaving regular people to suffer endlessly working to try to scrape by. You can't even make a comparison. I know this is a "No True Scotsmaning" situation, but you can't tell me that authoritarians that don't allow you to make your own direction in life or have democratic choices in the workplace (because you control the means of production) are somehow "leftist."
Like, it's really a struggle for me to call what it is today "leftism" because I think it's suffering from the same thing the US and others are, which is actually "despotism," which leans neither left nor right. All governments and all types of government systems are susceptible to despotism. If a leftist government is taken over by despots, it isn't truly still a left-wing government.
posted by deadaluspark at 9:47 AM on October 23, 2021 [1 favorite]
To me, that's where you distinctly have pulled away from leftism, because to me leftism has always been defined by democracy of the workplace and workers and individuals having greater political control over their own destinies.
China has not been a country "for the worker" in a long time, no matter how much they try to present themselves as such. You don't get to have forced labor camps for minorities and say you support the workers.
Like, I get what your Chinese friends are saying, the CCP was literally born of leftism... but the CCP of today is a bunch of selfish fucking toadies who do nothing but amass wealth and power among themselves while leaving regular people to suffer endlessly working to try to scrape by. You can't even make a comparison. I know this is a "No True Scotsmaning" situation, but you can't tell me that authoritarians that don't allow you to make your own direction in life or have democratic choices in the workplace (because you control the means of production) are somehow "leftist."
Like, it's really a struggle for me to call what it is today "leftism" because I think it's suffering from the same thing the US and others are, which is actually "despotism," which leans neither left nor right. All governments and all types of government systems are susceptible to despotism. If a leftist government is taken over by despots, it isn't truly still a left-wing government.
posted by deadaluspark at 9:47 AM on October 23, 2021 [1 favorite]
A small derail -- I think a lot of all the sad development in the former East Block stems from the fact that most people who lived there thought Western Social Democracy was the same thing as the "Socialism" they had struggled with since at least WW2, in the former Sovjet republics even longer. So they voted for libertarians and conservatives who have predictably turned into crooks and robbers.
posted by mumimor at 10:46 AM on October 23, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by mumimor at 10:46 AM on October 23, 2021 [1 favorite]
« Older #striketober international | All In The Game Yo, All In The Game Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by travertina at 1:34 PM on October 19, 2021 [1 favorite]