SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From Reuters:
A Pakistani counter-terrorism court has sentenced to death a man who allegedly committed blasphemy on Facebook, a government prosecutor said on Sunday, the first time someone has been handed the death penalty for blaspheming on social media.
[...] Shafiq Qureshi, public prosecutor in Bahawalpur, about 500km (300 miles) south of provincial capital Lahore, said Raza was convicted for allegedly making derogatory remarks against Prophet Mohammad, his wives and companions.
"An anti terrorism court of Bahawalpur has awarded him the death sentence," Qureshi told Reuters." It is the first ever death sentence in a case that involves social media."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Pakistan Sentences Man to Death for Blasphemy on Facebook
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 139 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
HELP! Man trapped in a human body!
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Monday June 12 2017, @11:25AM (47 children)
Oh, wow, that's the irony of the year so far.
I'm not the AC you answered too, but here's what the people generally understand by authoritarianism:
authoritarianism [britannica.com]
authoritarian [merriam-webster.com]
authoritarianism [wikipedia.org]
Do you still see authoritarianism and democracy as compatible?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @11:39AM (44 children)
That "blind submission" isn't part of the definition of "authority". It's not my fault that people's perceptions are messed up.
How do you propose that democracy would work, without any concept of authority? If all my neighbors vote that my house should be demolished, so that they can put in a park for their children, should my house be demolished? That is pure democracy, right? Tear it down, that's how the vote went, right?
But, we have a lot of different authorities that are going to get involved before that happens. Like, me asserting my own authority over my own property. Maybe I'll call some real authority figures in, like the local cops. Some judge with authority to abjudicate the case will get involved.
Nowhere does "blind submission" come into play here. You're thinking of Islam.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Monday June 12 2017, @11:49AM (10 children)
Come on, mate!
Admit you made a confusion between:
and let's move on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @12:21PM (5 children)
I'll give you this: The common understanding of authoritarianism, the common definition, is pretty much incompatible with democracy.
Let's consider leadership training, where authoritarianism is presented as one of several styles of leadership. Any decent leadership course warns against relying on authority as your primary style of leadership. But, all decent leadership courses include it as a legitimate form of leadership, to be drawn on, and used, when circumstances warrant.
A pure authoritarian fails in many ways, but anyone who uses a pure form of any other style is likely to fail just as spectacularly. A leader should learn all styles, and use each of them, when appropriate.
If your house is on fire, do you really expect the fire truck to arrive, and the fire fighting team to cast votes to see if they are going to fight this particular fire? Or, do you expect the team leader to take charge, and to tell his team where and how to attack the fire? THAT is authoritarian leadership in action. Police and the military rely on it extensively, businessmen should use it more sparingly. High school and college coaches should rely on the coaching style of leadership more than anything else, but they should also be able to fall back on authoritariansim now and then.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 12 2017, @12:39PM
Disagree.
That is authority in action, and I hope the authority is derived from vast experience, the ability to maintain a cool head in front of a fire and the skills to use that head fast. I won't refuse a good physical condition as well.
Yes, that authority requires compliance from the team, but not unreserved compliance; i.e. I do expect that the rest of the team have enough experience as well to not rely solely on the authority of their leader in dealing with problems they notice (like communicating "I'm not going to get to the second floor, send someone else. I just noticed a scared kid hiding under the bed at the first floor, he's suffocating")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @03:42PM (2 children)
So my summary as an AC reading through the thread...
No you won't admit it
But yes you were wrong!
Next up, we'll discussion the definition of troll.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @04:51PM (1 child)
Yes, you can be a troll. I've explained that the term is commonly used in texts used to teach leadership. And, the term isn't exactly what the common man believes it to mean. That "unthinking" and "mindless" bit is bullshit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @05:06PM
Then it isn't authoritarian. The whole premise is that people obey without question. People still think about their orders, and sometimes violate them, but make no mistake those people run the risk of prison or execution.
The only real world scenario where your statement makes sense is a conversation like this:
"Good morning Sir, we analyzed your plans and the A.I. reports that it will likely lead to greater unrest and a 7% chance of armed rebellion. Maybe we should re-think the approach to Glorious Day."
"The statue will be finished on time Commander."
"I assure you Lord my men are working as fast as they can."
"The emperor does not share your optimism, perhaps you can explain it to him."
"The emperor is coming here?? We shall redouble our efforts!"
If you disagree with the orders your only option is rebellion. Assassinate the emperor/king/tyrant, or organize a full military coup. Only India has been able to pull off the pacifist strategy, and that is because they were ruled by a society that considered itself highly civilized. Once the brutality was made evident the British couldn't maintain public support.
I bet your mindset is due to your time in the military where you must obey authority yet there is a squeaky little door which allows some free thinking through. In practice this is almost always punished, rarely does the military (if ever??) celebrate someone who disobeyed orders. They need to maintain the "chain of command" which is really just authoritarian methods to make managing thousands of troops easier. I do understand why it is necessary for military purposes, success depends on reliable execution of orders. However, general society should be more flexible and not depend on some jagweed's ego.
This thread is perhaps the best example of your personal cognitive dissonance. You supposedly support freedom and lots of good things, but then you have weird little side tracks in your mind where the train stops to drop off all the cute fuzzy animals for slaughter. Hence why you get some users constantly calling you lots of bad names. Hell, you got partway there with this thread, you sort of admitted you were wrong but not really. Try and accelerate your learning, actively fight your own ego which is throwing up walls of bullshit.
I suggest you listen to people who get really pissed at you and try to reassess your standpoint without the backdrop of "they're just whiny little SJWs" which rallies your emotional anger and stops your critical thinking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @04:58PM
Go ahead, little runaway! Dig that hole deeper! Keep digging! You need to make it deeper!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday June 13 2017, @12:08AM (3 children)
No. That's not a definition of authoritarianism. Instead, it is [oxforddictionaries.com]:
You have to understand the authoritarian's viewpoint first. They believe that too much individual freedom will harm them or their societies. Individuals make bad choices and authorities make good ones. Thus, it is entirely appropriate to subordinate the infantile wishes of the foolish individual to that of the benevolent, wise authority.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 13 2017, @12:26AM
Interesting, I haven't thought at authoritarianism from the angle of a bona fide conviction, only from the perspective of a "personal advantages motives".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13 2017, @05:16PM (1 child)
Aside from C0LO I think most people understand where the authoritarian is coming from, but in practice it fails miserably. It is a very rare human that is not corrupted by the near absolute power of the despot, and it makes for terrible leadership. Instead of short terms of horror you can end up with 20-50 years of it, with monumentally worse decisions being made. Democracy has its flaws, but it is the best long term solution out there.
It is incredibly strange that people supposedly exist in the US. I'm still pretty convinced your a russian troll trying to push the idea that oligarchy is the best way forward, if not then you should be imprisoned for treason. Oh wait, we have freedom of speech in the US you lucky bastard. Maybe we should get a dictator to revoke that, stop the press from "lying" all the time, and put traitors in jail! While I would love to see you in prison for advocating a return to medieval times I know that path is wrong. Even if I get everything I want for a while, eventually some jackass will get in power and we'll get horrors inflicted upon many.
The idea of the stupid public is one that has been pushed for a long time. It simply is not true, and if there weren't such a major propaganda effort to mislead everyone then we wouldn't have the current level of problems splitting the country. Stop your bootlicking bullshit.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 13 2017, @11:29PM
The khallow in the alternate reality you come from sounds like a real bastard, but I am not him. And there's a quote from Aristotle that applies well here.
If you ever read my posts elsewhere, you would see that I don't accept authoritarianism even though I think I understand it fairly well.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Monday June 12 2017, @12:15PM
As for the "blind submission", here's another cultural reference in whatever format you consider appropriate for you.
The author (a Canadian, no stakes in US politics) is an authority in authoritarianism - he studied it for 40 years.
In brief
If you want a prototype of "blind submission" here on SN, pay attention to the jmorris' position on Trump; please notify me if you find any critique, that will be a day I'll circle with red in the calendar and celebrate each year as a miracle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 12 2017, @12:44PM (31 children)
Oh, sorry, I forgot the link for the "blind submission" (or mangled the markup).
Here it is in full: https://theauthoritarians.org/options-for-getting-the-book/ [theauthoritarians.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @01:56PM (30 children)
I'm reading that one - currently on page 20 - it's damned interesting. I'm not sure yet how much I agree with what he writes, but it's definitely interesting.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test/ [politicalcompass.org]
Have you ever taken one of these tests? If you have a few minutes (ten, maybe? I didn't time myself) to waste, you might take this one. This particular test places me further left than most, and slightly less "authoritarian" than most. I am in the same quadrant as always though - to the left, and authoritarian. It's in the ballpark.
The point being, authoritarianism plays a role in all political systems. It can play an unhealthy role, and it can play a healthy role. In your link, Bob Altemeyer seems to end up equating authoritarianism with the right (at least in North America). But, as the compass demonstrates, authoritarianism is neither a left nor right thing - it is a different axis in the same spectrum.
I hear authoritarianism daily, from both the left and the right, and neither of them seems to realize what they are saying. The left relies on authoritarianism every time they say "there ought to be a law". Seat belts, tobacco, the size of soft drinks that are legal to sell, on and on it goes. Every time some group is outraged, they want to write a new law. That, again, is authoritarianism in action.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @02:00PM (7 children)
Rereading my post, I'm afraid I wasn't clear on my placement on the test. I'm not "further left than most" people. This test result places me further left than most test results place me. And, this test result places me slightly closer to libertarianism than most of my test results have placed me. But, the results of this test pretty closely match other similar tests.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-5.5&soc=0.15 [politicalcompass.org]
I am usually three lines further right, and a line or so further up on the scales.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @05:12PM (6 children)
I don't know, this test places me further left than the Green party, which I generally despise for being extremist dumb-ass impractical SJW pinko fairy brethren. I don't get along with lefty types at all.
Some of the questions didn't have any answer that I wanted. There was not an option for "ambivalent", or "it depends", or "I'm not homosexual, how the fuck would/could I know what they feel?".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @05:36PM (5 children)
I take it then, that you are probably an American. Europeans are very comfortable taking this and similar tests. They understand the political spectrum better than we do. I suppose that is because Europeans have so many different political systems on that one continent. People travel, and they are exposed to all sorts of different political views. Here in the US, few citizens even realize that Louisiana is rather unique, in that their judicial system goes back to Napoleanic Law, somewhat like Mexico's does.
The first time I took one of these tests, I had the same reaction. "Hell no! I'm not commie!"
I don't understand that shit well enough to try to explain it all. But, the test does help to explain why I don't fit into either of America's main political camps. Keep in mind that Europeans often tell us that we don't have a left and a right party. What we have are right and further right. And, we're so fucked up, we don't even know how extreme we are!
Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex. I really think they have poisoned our political system so that there is no room for a left. Hell, there isn't even room for centrist or moderate views.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @06:12PM
YOU don't realize how fucked up we are, and your fellow mid westerners as a whole.
There are quite a few cities with massive cultural mixing, but ironically we're demonized as elitist ivory tower communists/socialists. I've lost a lot of the patience I had for close minded people once I realized how they view me. I'm an oddball loony who is entertaining in their mind, and more often than not they try and convert me to their way of thinking.
PS: the close minded / crazies are on the left and right, but overwhelmingly on the conservative spectrum. For all the new age crystal healers you get twice the number of faith healers. Christian fundamentalism, one of the big industries of the US...
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Monday June 12 2017, @06:16PM
As a reader from the UK, I'd agree with that being the perception of pretty much everyone I've ever spoken to. Here, the Conservatives have been trying - and succeeding - in pulling the political focus to the right for years now, latterly as they try to take votes from UKIP; witness the painting of current Labour policies as "loony left", despite being pretty mainstream social democratic-type policies for somewhere like Sweden. Margaret Thatcher supposedly said that she considered (Tony Blair's) New Labour her greatest triumph and they were notably more rightward leaning[1] than Labour were in the days of Kinnock, etc. May and many others in the Conservatives seem to wish to emulate the Republican party; Thursday's result means rather more people than she'd suspected don't agree and would prefer otherwise.
[1] The original line included "rightward bent" but I changed that as it just brings Mandelson to mind.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 13 2017, @11:44PM (2 children)
Sorry, I don't buy that. Instead, I think they are merely elsewhere. If Europeans understood the political spectrum so well, then why do they have so much trouble dealing with both their far right and immigrant viewpoints?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 14 2017, @12:17AM (1 child)
Because they are fucking liberal, of course. Or, progressive. Euros, or western Euros, have bought into that whole thing about man "evolving". Let's be clear - only liberal, left, or progressive people view the "immigrant" thing as an immigrant thing at all. Europe is suffering under an invasion from Islam. That is why Euros have problems with the "immigrant viewpoint" - they aren't immigrants.
Despite your, or my, or any other American's problems grasping the political spectrum, that spectrum represents political reality far better than our own poor understanding of left/right/moderate. I won't try to convince you that it's perfect, nor will I try to convince you that it is accurate. But, it is orders of magnitude more accurate, and more informative, than our left/right scale. Of course, it is a given that any polished turd would be better than our own unpolished two party system.
There isn't anything in the constitution alluding to a "two party system", is there? Funny how we've adopted that nonsense as though it were law, written in stone. I remember learning in Civics class that the two party system was the best thing since sliced bread. But, I do NOT recall anything in the constitution about two parties. Instead, the two corrupt parties have written a myriad of campaign and funding rules that favor the two corrupt parties, and effectively barring any third parties from becoming serious contenders.
To summarize, the D's and R's actively work to keep us confused, so it's no surprise that our understanding of politics is fucked up.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 14 2017, @03:50AM
What spectrum? Again, I don't buy that Europeans have any better understanding than anyone else. I think what is missed here is that in living memory, a huge portion of the European political spectrum nuked itself by cooperating with Nazis and other fascists during the Second World War. And use of the word "nuke" is appropriate here. You couldn't have more effectively gotten rid of them by gathering them all in one place and setting off a nuclear bomb. I'm not saying the resulting completely repudiation for most of a century wasn't deserved, but this does warp public perception of politics as a result.
The US didn't have that degree of repudiation and hence, has a stronger political representation and understanding of far right and similar beliefs/issues. Similarly, the US's higher long term immigration rate has resulted in a better understanding of immigrant beliefs and issues as well. Hence, my point in bringing these two groups up.
As to the two party system, that's a natural artifact of the first-past-the-post voting system the US created in the first place. There's never been a time when two parties didn't dominate the system. It's baked into the Constitution, just not explicitly or (IMHO) intentionally.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Monday June 12 2017, @02:42PM (3 children)
1. well, well, well, appears our li'l runaway is capable of a certain amount of learning...
.
2. 'authoritarianism' (as ALL THE REST OF US describe and know it) is NOT sometimes a 'good thing', EXCEPT in the weird exceptional cases you will make up where someone had to take quick, unilateral action to save someone else... those cases don't demonstrate how 'authoritarianism' is 'useful', merely that you will not admit defeat...
.
3. of course, one of the hallmarks of authoritarians is that if Big Daddy says X is 'bad', then all the authoritarian followers will have their two minutes of hating X without questioning... if Big Daddy says tomorrow that X is 'good', then the authoritarian followers will pivot on a dime and say X is 'good', without questioning why they are now 'good'... compliant, obedient, and vicious to those questioning Big Daddy's authority and orthodoxy...
.
4. i don't recall that the author referred to talked about this, but my take is that -in retrospect- of course it makes sense that 25% of the population as a whole are authoritarians: weaker, stupider, less competent nekkid apes glom onto the biggest, fattest, sleekest, most 'successful' nekkid ape they see, and do everything Big Daddy nekkid ape does, eat what Big Daddy nekkid ape does, go where Big Daddy goes, and hate who Big Daddy tells them to hate...
OF COURSE that is a successful strategy for the less capable nekkid apes to blindly follow a successful one...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 12 2017, @09:16PM (2 children)
My curiosity: do you take Runaway as some kind of moron?
Or did you intend to use the "willingness" term and, in the spur of the moment, the "capability" just flew from your fingertips?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by art guerrilla on Saturday June 17 2017, @12:02PM (1 child)
1. no, i do not take runaway as a moron, except sometimes... 8^)
(ahem, we are ALL ignorant of MOST things, we are ALL susceptible to moronicity... yeah, this moron just neologied the shit out of that...)
.
2. in point of fact, i have on different occasions defended runaways arguments, or at least right to make them... unfortunately, his hyper-rational, super-strict, calvinistic, and draconian take on issues usually ignores one tiny factor : human beans and their confounding behaviors...
.
3. and -yes- my meta-point was i find runaway (like a LOT of people) far too prone to kneejerk authoritarianism in order to 'solve' (ie NOT solve, suppress) problems in society... again, EVERYONE thinks: IF ONLY those idiots would do like i tell them, it is all for their own good... (says a thousand kings, a thousand dictators, and 7 billion runaways...)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday June 17 2017, @12:34PM
+1. Twice.
---
in the context of:
So I take your diagnostic is "a common case of age-related degenerative kneejerkism, with authoritarian pronation" rather than unwillingness or lack of intellectual capability.
You see, in their youth, humans have a wide horizon of choices, reactions and thoughts. As we progress through the age and experience, this horizon reduces to a point; this is what is called "the personal Point of View about life". Happens to most of us, the only difference is the position of that point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 12 2017, @08:12PM
To my surprise, my result places me just a smidge (on both axis) in the authoritarian left.
Probably the age effect, about 10-15 years earlier I'd have been more on the left and heck deep into libertarian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 12 2017, @08:41PM (15 children)
I didn't see it this way. The USA "left" establishment is as right-wing authoritarian as the political right (your take that USA doesn't have an established political left is correct - I'm not fully aware of the position of US greens).
What he calls "right-wing authoritarians" applies to both political left/right. He clarifies his use of the term on page 15:
On the next page. by contrast:
The explanation for the non-existence of left-wing authoritarians resides in the last part (the Weatherman / Weather Underground [wikipedia.org] for those who don't know/can't remember the reference).
And Bob Altemeyer is correct in this regard - the USians authoritarians are right-wing authoritarians, no matter if they are political left or right (I find it pinky cute the pretence of some gun owners that they are actually buying/owning guns to follow the spirit of the second amendment).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 14 2017, @12:02AM (14 children)
In other words, he's saying authoritarian-authoritarians, which is rather redundant. And this sort of "right" has no countering "left". It would be very easy to be both right and left wing by the above meaning since the concepts are compatible (unlike the language implication).
That's a very traditional authority role as well. And notice the whole point of this edifice is merely so he can claim that he doesn't know many left wing authoritarians. I don't see why he just merely ignores the facts that don't fit his worldview and come up with a simpler system that doesn't tax his brain so much. Maybe it's a live by the sword, die by the sword kind of thing.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 14 2017, @11:38AM (13 children)
I beg to disagree.
I think the distinction would be between law-abiding (with law makers as leaders) authoritarians and unlawful authoritarians. Lets say between proper/improper authoritarians or right/wrong authoritarians. On the ground that all laws are rules, but not all rules are legal, I argue one can imagine the existence of authoritarians compulsively sticking to a set of illegal rules.
Does the distinction matter? Of course it does:
1. the behaviour of lawful authoritarians will be light-years distance from the behaviour of unlawful ones.
2. it would be hard to write a non-fiction social-science book about the unlawful authoritarians; I mean, look, Mafia's mostly absent nowadays and it's not like the Mexican.... ummm... medicine men?... are so approachable and willing to answer to questionnaires and what not. (and no, Montana Freemen [wikipedia.org], Rainbow Farm [wikipedia.org], Ruby Ridge [wikipedia.org], Bundy Standoff [wikipedia.org] etc., while significant as events, aren't frequent enough to qualify as a social phenomenon worth studying).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 14 2017, @01:09PM (12 children)
Or the conformist communists/Marxists of the 20th century. The thing that is missed here is that unlawful authoritarians have in-group rules. They are lawful authoritarians by those rules. Hence, in situations where they achieve society-wide authority, their movement into the "lawful" side is seamless.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 14 2017, @01:46PM (11 children)
I can't accept the unlawful authoritarians and the underground political movements as equivalent.
E.g. Mafia is not going ever** to become a lawful presence, but they still have their in-group rules (and members who have... umm, the loyalty and discipline feelings driven to extreme, indistinguishable from those of authoritarians). As such, their behaviour is going to be always specifically distinct from political movements, no matter how "revolutionary" the latter are.
---
** that is, unless the dream of our "violent imposed monopoly"-anarcho-capitalistic-AC becomes reality. If this does happen, Mafia will be one of the enforcers acting on the market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 15 2017, @12:03AM (10 children)
I didn't say they were. Communists and Marxists though have substantial conforming behavior, ideology, and rules that sets them apart from normal underground movements.
Not seeing the argument here. Authoritarian groups can vary. Here, the Mafia has different goals and priorities than a revolutionary group. And that leads to different behavior as a result. And I'd never say never. Today's criminal group may well become tomorrow's lawful authority. The Mafia in particular had their own laws and authority often in conflict with the countries in which they resided. They made their presence lawful at times particularly in Sicily and southern Italy, Cuba, and parts of the US.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 15 2017, @11:39AM (9 children)
Yes, butt you remember where we started the discussion. With you saying that there's a single type of authoritarians (the redundant "authoritarian authoritarian").
And I continue to argue that there are more than a single type of them and one can expect different behaviours from different types.
Do you have something to object to this argument or are we in agreement?
Because if the latter, then we can agree he studied only one type of authoritarians and the only thing we may discuss about is the appropriateness of the "right-wing authoritarians" term he used to label the subjects of his study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 15 2017, @11:53AM (8 children)
I didn't say that. That was Maher's convenient interpretation of "right wing".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 15 2017, @12:31PM (7 children)
This is the pet definition of which I spoke earlier. Law and authority is relative and the authoritarian will always consider their source of authority to be primal, hence, why I don't see any such thing as "unlawful" authoritarianism. Note, for example, that Marx spent a lot of rhetorical effort justifying the legitimacy of his cause while simultaneously delegitimatizing that of the established power structure. The labour theory of value was first and foremost an exercise in claiming authority by the nebulous group of the proletariat. Thus, communist-style communism is not about unlawful actions, but rather establishing a new authority aligned with the ideology and its principles. But what they consider "lawful, proper, correct, doing what their authorities said", is going to be very different from what a follower of the established political system would consider so.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 15 2017, @12:49PM (6 children)
If all you do is look at the coarsest scale, it is true indeed. But Bob Altemeyer asserted that he's looking on a finer scale, which can discern sub-types, and within this finer scale, looking only at one such subtype. His assertion is "there are other type I haven't studied and I'll not write about".
I still consider law and authority as distinct.
Here's an example for authoritarians for whom becoming legit/legal is contrary to their interest: the drug cartels will be in peril if drugs become legal - they won't be able to compete with big pharma (where are the Chicago gangsters from the time of prohibition?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 15 2017, @01:10PM (5 children)
And his assertion turned out inaccurate as I discussed earlier. So not seeing the point to caring that he asserted something.
How is it distinct here? Let us note also that the drug cartels go to great lengths to make their wealth and persons legit and legal (such as staying out of jail for their crimes).
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 15 2017, @01:27PM (4 children)
Oh, come on. Don't equate now "try to stay out of jail" with "striving to be legit", it's too much of a stretch.
Besides, even if the leader of a cartel would maybe try to "paint" himself as legit, this is not something you can say about the rest of the smaller fish around them - they can't afford the cost of "apparently law abiding citizens" for them "you cannot prove it was me who did it" is enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 16 2017, @12:06AM (3 children)
I didn't. "Try to stay out of jail" is a significant subcategory though of "striving to be legit" as I indicated with my choice of the term, "such as".
And? You're not actually disagreeing with me. A variety of authoritarian systems operate that way. The leader has the aura of legitimacy and authority and the followers do the dirty work behind the scenes. Classic failure mode of any sort of authoritarian system.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 16 2017, @06:32AM (2 children)
Ok, So we agree? There are more than one variety of authoritarians, responding to different pressures from the env and exhibiting different behavior (even if the underlying general/coarse principle of authoritarianism stays the same).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 16 2017, @10:59AM (1 child)
We always agreed on that. My point all along was that "right wing" as mentioned earlier had been redefined to mean authoritarian. I don't know why Bob Altemeyer felt the need to create a new meaning for "right wing" that is redundant with authoritarian and differs from actually usage of right wing and left wing, but I strongly suspect it's a propaganda move merely to label right wing groups with the authoritarian label. However, as a result, it creates unnecessary semantics confusion such as your earlier mentioned inability to think of examples of left wing authoritarianism despite the obvious example of 20th century communism and Runaway's mention of the "there ought to be a law" behavior.
In other words, things that normally would be not right wing are considered right wing merely because we're using a non-standard definition for right wing. And notice how your last sentence about gun owners is a complete non sequitur. Gun owning, even for the "pretense" of exercising a right, is not authoritarian. Irrationality often follows such weird semantics games like this and I think we see a little of that in action in your much earlier post.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday June 17 2017, @06:12AM
Ok, I have no beef with your critique on his choice of terms. It's indeed a terminology syntactically overlapping with other ones without enough share of semantics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 12 2017, @09:24PM
Sleep on those on the line of the role of authoritarianism:
1. The rule of responsible breaker: rules are good. Without them, I could not afford to break something on a daily basis.
2. A rule system is as good as its capability of allowing enough chaos to let the society evolve without the risk of devolving.
3. Any rule system imposes a model of/on reality. Any model of reality is incomplete (by its very nature of being a model).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @05:57PM (1 child)
Even Plato claimed ages ago that after Democracy comes Tyranny.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 16 2017, @12:20AM
Keep in mind that Plato was a staunch opponent of democracy as a member of the Athenian aristocracy. His opinion doesn't come uncolored.