You're viewing a single thread.
-
So... at about 9m16s, he admits that it's not just the conservatives that do this sort of thing / have authoritarian undertones. And he's right... but it's a point that's downplayed. Most political parties are marching to an authoritarian drum at this point.
-
Well yes, but it's a big spectrum right? Most workplaces are authoritarian so we have habituated. A shitty boss who schedules you badly is not a slave owner. The cons are pro-oligarch, believing that merit is demonstrated by wealth and sometimes breeding. All the parties accept a monarchy even a bit, sorry Bloc, and have a traditional leadership structure so some authoritarian tendencies are everywhere.
Conservative parties throughout history have trended toward either aristocratic stratification and sometimes despotic populism. It's not even close, and disingenuous to both-sides it. Tankies would be the closest comparison.
-
Tankies... what utterly moronic slang.
It isn't disingenuous to call out authoritarian practices, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they're on. What's disingenuous is the left/progressive failure to recognise/take action on their own failings in this regard, as failing to do so calls into question the legitimacy of their convictions and the validity of their arguments, and ultimately alienates some moderates. It makes it easier to poke holes and demonstrate that the left isn't serious about the issue being a 'problem', because the left engages in the same behaviour -- just to a lesser extent, or in a different format, arguably. Even in the clip linked by the Op -- it's all "BOO CONS SO BAD FOR THIS!" and then the admission "Yeah, everyone does this", subverts the message. How can people be annoyed at the cons for doing X, if the analysts openly admit (once you're past the click bait), that everyone does X?
In some ways, what the 'left' does is more insidious. They present themselves as the alternative to the republicans, but then people like Pelosi abuse the system to acquire giant fortunes, while maintaining laws and tax systems that benefit themselves / their rich benefactors. They pit the poors against one another by pushing demographic conflicts, to keep the commoners ire away from their bank accounts. Both sides of the political spectrum are moving increasingly towards authoritarian ideals -- turning a blind eye to the faults of the 'left', just because you feel the 'right' is more egregious, doesn't make it any better - it just green lights the moral decay on the left. The heavy-handed/forced tactics of the DNC in the states, would be hard to call anything other than a dangerous "authoritarian" trend, which arguably cost them two recent elections. Excusing that sort of 'trend towards authoritarianism' just because the right-wing is going harder towards the same steaming pile of feces, doesn't make things any better. So yes, I'll "both sides" things all I want in this context. The freedom for an individual to call out bs on both sides is egalitarian at its core, I'd argue: I can hate all politicians equally.
Trying to rail road me into a single, left/progressive approved, narrative... using the tired old cry of "both sidesing!", is a very authoritarian thing to do.
-
Pelosi=left?! Get rekt.
-
But it certainly is disingenuous to treat authoritarianism like a boolean property - rather than acknowledging (or far better, quantifying) the difference in degree to which taking or leveraging authority is chosen over other approaches to leadership.
I told an aggressively pushy door-to-door salesman to leave and and shut my door in his face. Am I a dictator now?
And why are your arguments framed entirely around entities that are not left and exist in a foreign political system that has no left at a party level, while drawing no connection to Canadian politics nor the Canadian political parties that are actually under discussion? That's a weird choice for a Canadian who isn't intellectually captured by American media or actually someone/thing of other origin working from a script.
-
-
-
#bothSides
-