Glide

I do believe that extremism lends itself to authoritarianism. The deeper you are rooted into your belief structure, the more likely you are to believe everyone else has gotten it wrong, and the more likely you are to think imposing your beliefs on others is in their best interests. The circular model that I proposed is simply a way of highlighting this.

While I am sure this isn't true of all libertarians, they tend to be ogliarchs (or wannabe ogliarchs) in sheeps clothing. We may have another word for rule by the rich and economically powerful, but I do not think the gap between them and fascists is wide enough to avoid the blanket of "authoritarianism." I do think libertarianism is an extremist idea that just leads to a different flavour of authoritarianism, thus my point.

I mean, if you want a real genuine answer, it's that simplifying the entirety of political thought into a binary is a rediculous premise to begin with, and highlights one of the core fallacies that the human condition leads to time and time again: that of false dichotomy. Calling the political spectrum a circle is exactly as absurd as calling it a line, and taking either of these paradigms to be literal and infallible is to grossly misunderstand politics.

My point is more that both routes, left or right, have a path through extremism into authoritarianism. Try not to take the silly analogy I used to communicate this point so literally.

Let's be real: it's about control. They want sex on their terms, and paying for it doesn't put them in control. They say things like "genuine human connection," while desperately wanting a traditional, subservient woman that they can use to satisfy their needs.

Two ducks of different colored feathers remain two ducks. Discovering a second duck doesn't cause the first one to cease to exist, nor make a fool out of anyone who perceived it as a duck.

The mods of .ml are pro China/Russia authoritarianists, and will ban you for posting comments that disagree with them. I've received a ban for discussing my experiences teaching Taiwanese and Chinese students, because I described the way the Chinese students reacted in the face of evidence that Taiwan is a self-governing sovereign state as "brainwashed."

I was banned under rule 1, which is listed as being polite and civil. Trust me when I say I have said far more less polite and civil things directly to mods, so it's concerning that politely expressing real lived experiences that contradicts their opinions on Chinese authoritarianism is what counts as being rude and uncivil around those parts.

I haven't blocked them. Many of those communities include the founders/creators of Lemmy, so to block the community feels disjointed from the app, to me. But I think twice about wasting my time on individual conversations in or from people in .ml.

Spend a week in memes and you'll see how categorically untrue that is.

Nah, don't you get it. Refusing to pull the level and switch the track is clearly the only ethical choice.

/s before people genuinely think I am in defense throwing your hands up in the air and calling it not your problem.

Pretty braindead position to take when Yog is posting pro-Russia propaganda memes straight to the front page of memes.ml on the regular.

The political spectrum isn't a line: it's a circle. It doesn't matter if you go left or right, once you go far enough, both sides meet on "authoritarianism." Trump wants to be a dictator. Tankies love dictators. Social cohesion is infinitely more important to these people than how they get there. As long as there's a government regulated "in" crowd and they're part of it, they'll justify any level of doublespeak, goal post moving and hypocrisy, and they're willing to perform any amount of mental gymnastics to get there.

Children should not be guilty of the sins of their parents

Convinient position to take when you're the benefactor of apartheid.

It's almost as bad as being so dug into your belief system that you would rather let fascists win then compromise.

I actually barely even have the words.

Past suffering is no excuse to celebrate present and future suffering. I don't care how frustrating it is that middle-class Americans have lived in the lap of relative luxury at the loss of foreign life. Slaughtering the benefactors of injustice is not justice. It doesn't even stop the injustice from continuing. To wish for the death of millions of ignorant innocents in defense of refusing to act to stop the worst of the knowledgeable offenders is inexcusable.