But it tends to be interpreted as “authority I disagree with”
I disagree with most hierarchical forms of authority, so at least statistically that seems like an adequate definition.
Conservatives have gleefully used the term
I dunno if you’ve noticed this, but conservatives don’t seem to care much about where they get the words they turn into weapons or what they might’ve originally meant, so I wouldn’t use them as a yardstick for the general meaning or utility of a term.
Capitalist growth drive contains the seeds of its own destruction.
I think you might’ve missed my point. You replied to my joking comment about authoritarianism by asking who would win between an authoritarian and an anarchist. I was countering by pointing out that we obviously care a lot more about things like justice than merely who would win, otherwise we would all back capitalism because it’s winning like gangbusters right now despite being pretty unjust. The fact that it might stop winning some day really doesn’t have much bearing on the point about only backing winners though, does it? I choose to assume that you’ve misunderstood, because the alternative is to assume that you are acting in bad faith in trying to distract from the original point.
It can’t just be vibes based individualism
Dismissing a whole-ass rich and nuanced political philosophy as ‘vibes’ - twice now - is not making me terribly inclined to continue giving you the benefit of the doubt for much longer though.
I disagree with most hierarchical forms of authority, so at least statistically that seems like an adequate definition.
I dunno if you’ve noticed this, but conservatives don’t seem to care much about where they get the words they turn into weapons or what they might’ve originally meant, so I wouldn’t use them as a yardstick for the general meaning or utility of a term.
I think you might’ve missed my point. You replied to my joking comment about authoritarianism by asking who would win between an authoritarian and an anarchist. I was countering by pointing out that we obviously care a lot more about things like justice than merely who would win, otherwise we would all back capitalism because it’s winning like gangbusters right now despite being pretty unjust. The fact that it might stop winning some day really doesn’t have much bearing on the point about only backing winners though, does it? I choose to assume that you’ve misunderstood, because the alternative is to assume that you are acting in bad faith in trying to distract from the original point.
Dismissing a whole-ass rich and nuanced political philosophy as ‘vibes’ - twice now - is not making me terribly inclined to continue giving you the benefit of the doubt for much longer though.