• @COASTER1921@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    361 year 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]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        231 year 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]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11
          edit-2
          1 year 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

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            71 year ago

            You are probably right, I was really just trying to talk about how, as it currently stands, the people who use the term are basically just expressing either that they fell for a thought-terminating cliche or are expecting their audience to fall for it.

      • @Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        11
        edit-2
        1 year ago

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

        • @brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          131 year ago

          Well, every state enforces its laws and its territorial claims through the use of unilateral violence; if a person doesn’t agree with a state’s law, the state isn’t going to exempt them from it, it will make them follow it by force. More importantly, the state maintains that this is a moral and legitimate use of force: that it has the authority to do this.

          And yes most states (all states really) have procedures by which their citizens can have a say in what the laws should be, but what they never do is cede any authority. Everybody has to follow the law, and will be forced to if needed.

          • 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.

            • @brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              121 year ago

              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.

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

              Just using some kind of authority, doesn’t make a government authoritarian by any common definition of the word.

              Actually it pretty much does, atleast if you actually stick to definition. In practice, of course, the word is mostly just used as a snarl word to attack enemy countries, but at that point definitions have gone out the windows.

              • 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.

                • @brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  41 year ago

                  You misunderstand me fairly severely. I did not say that the state enforces “moral law”, or anything even close to that.

                  I said that the state maintains that it is moral for it to enforce law at all. Because generally speaking, it is not considered moral to unilaterally compel people, with violence if necessary, to behave in ways they do not agree to, and to not believe they should have to.

                • FeminalPanda
                  link
                  fedilink
                  41 year ago

                  What about abortion? Tracking if women are pregnant and hunting them down if then stop being pregnant.

                  • 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.

    • @Auzy@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      I’ve been once for work. Didn’t have an issue with anyone there. I live in Australia now and a few of my friends are Chinese. In fact, I’ve had 2 Chinese really good friends / best friends

      None of them agree with the government at all