• COASTER1921@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I visit China frequently for work and feel that the impression most older Americans have of China is incredibly out of touch. The traditional media portrayal of the country is definitely a part of this. Yes, it’s certainly an authoritarian state, but this doesn’t change whether the people are nice or what they want in life.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think it’s probably better to simply say that “authoritarian” is a buzzword, though your implied argument that all states work by exerting authority on (at least some portion of) their population is certainly true. Anyone who uses a term like “authoritarian” rather than even a marginally more-descriptive negative term like, idk, “bureaucratic” or “state capitalist” (which gets misused, but I digress) is immediately demonstrating themselves to have untrustworthy judgement on the topic

        • IzyaKatzmann [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          maybe bring back totalitarian and use it against countries like the US? have a word that, like Huey P. Newton said regarding coining the term ‘pig’ for police, “highlights the contradiction”, in this case, between the selective usage of a word and it’s inherent meaning, none of which is understandable without contradictions from a prescriptive linguistic context

      • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Authoritarianism was a bullshit term invented by child-fucker libertarians to frame themselves as being the good guys.

          • cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            the state maintains that this is a moral and legitimate use of force: that it has the authority to do this.

            I don’t necessarily agree with “moral”. In western democracies laws and use of force doesn’t legitimize itself by a call to morality usually. Just using some kind of authority, doesn’t make a government authoritarian by any common definition of the word.

              • cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                11 months ago

                It absolutely does imo, it legitimises itself through an appeal to an underlying moral framework.

                Yes, but very indirectly. We don’t have a “moral police”, but one that enforces laws which are, as you say, legitimized by the people as a sovereign.

                So you don’t see police stopping people on “moral grounds” in some vague interpretation.

                  • cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Usually codified by lawy not prosecuted as “immoral behaviour” as such. Although if you look at recent anti-abortion legislation in the US it is intentionally vague. That shifts some burden of interpretation to the executive branch and is a sign of authoritarianism I’d say.