There is a big difference between analyzing problems in society by using groups as imperfect shortcuts and using groups to dehumanize people and agitate against them. I am sure you don’t mean it that way, but the way you write it one could easily add “immigrants” or “refugees” etc. In fact that is an argument right-wing people often make when confronted with actual refugees in person.
Yes, but you do understand that right-wing people think the exact opposite using the same logic and words as you do, right?
Edit: in a way that is the same logical fallacy autocratic-left make. Thinking that they can use the exact same means as their opponents to achieve different goals. But I am sure you know that in theory :)
Sure. I can elaborate on my worldview with a detailed analysis of why that is the case, just like they also could. But the facts i’m presenting for my arguments are, in my view, much more true and consistent than an opposite side blaming immigrants and queers for all their problems in life. We all have different points of views (and truths), does that invalidate my argument? In order to protect myself and my surroundings from a phenomenon, i need to be able to name it and describe it and understand it. In this case, authoritarianism it is.
Personally, i find more value in point out authoritarian discourse/actions themselves rather than labeling individuals. But that’s also because i have mental energy available to engage in debates, which is a privilege (time/energy is not available equally to all). So i understand why people develop different self-defense strategies and i respect that.
There is a big difference between analyzing problems in society by using groups as imperfect shortcuts and using groups to dehumanize people and agitate against them. I am sure you don’t mean it that way, but the way you write it one could easily add “immigrants” or “refugees” etc. In fact that is an argument right-wing people often make when confronted with actual refugees in person.
Yes, but refugees are not a problem for society by any standard. The same cannot be said of autocrats, bosses, patriarchs and cops.
Yes, but you do understand that right-wing people think the exact opposite using the same logic and words as you do, right?
Edit: in a way that is the same logical fallacy autocratic-left make. Thinking that they can use the exact same means as their opponents to achieve different goals. But I am sure you know that in theory :)
Sure. I can elaborate on my worldview with a detailed analysis of why that is the case, just like they also could. But the facts i’m presenting for my arguments are, in my view, much more true and consistent than an opposite side blaming immigrants and queers for all their problems in life. We all have different points of views (and truths), does that invalidate my argument? In order to protect myself and my surroundings from a phenomenon, i need to be able to name it and describe it and understand it. In this case, authoritarianism it is.
Personally, i find more value in point out authoritarian discourse/actions themselves rather than labeling individuals. But that’s also because i have mental energy available to engage in debates, which is a privilege (time/energy is not available equally to all). So i understand why people develop different self-defense strategies and i respect that.