Not really. You’re making a rather pseudoscientific analysis of personalities to arbitrarily define them as “spooky word.” What’s the material base of “aboritarianism?” What’s the practical application of categorizing people like this? It isn’t a mental disorder, and it isn’t genetic, and is very loose and arbitrary.
There is no such thing as “authoritarian personality disorder” or anything of the sort. Trying to grasp at straws to find a connection between these things isn’t science, it’s concocting a strawman by which to hurl at people you want to be seen by others as having the characteristics of the strawman.
How is what you are doing here not authoritarian by your own standard? You’re behaving poorly, acting in obvious bad faith, because someone went against your conventions, didnt submit to the authority of the concept of “authoritarianism” and you’re defending it aggressively.
Maybe if you actually answered my questions I would have an easier time understanding, because right now the definition you have given me could describe almost everyone. That’s why I wanted you to avoid just using variations of the word to begin with.
Nope, I linked a reputable academic critiquing the very subject.
A critique of using the word totalitarian to describe specifically nazi Germany and the USSR. That is not the same thing.
No, it isn’t the same thing, but the critique holds for the concept of “totalitarianism” and “authoritarianism” themselves. Did you read it?
I did.
Once again, you are conflating theory of state with individual choice.
Which also makes evident that you did not do the reading I suggested. C’est la vie.
I am not confusing it, the very concept of “authoritarianism” is suspect, both in the way you define it and in the coloquial sense.
Fine. Let’s not call it authoritarianism. Let’s call it aboritarianism,
Same three criteria, different word. Happy?
Not really. You’re making a rather pseudoscientific analysis of personalities to arbitrarily define them as “spooky word.” What’s the material base of “aboritarianism?” What’s the practical application of categorizing people like this? It isn’t a mental disorder, and it isn’t genetic, and is very loose and arbitrary.
Common personality traits and similar behaviors dictated by said traits.
There is no such thing as “authoritarian personality disorder” or anything of the sort. Trying to grasp at straws to find a connection between these things isn’t science, it’s concocting a strawman by which to hurl at people you want to be seen by others as having the characteristics of the strawman.
How is what you are doing here not authoritarian by your own standard? You’re behaving poorly, acting in obvious bad faith, because someone went against your conventions, didnt submit to the authority of the concept of “authoritarianism” and you’re defending it aggressively.
Maybe if you actually answered my questions I would have an easier time understanding, because right now the definition you have given me could describe almost everyone. That’s why I wanted you to avoid just using variations of the word to begin with.