>>100923803The authoritarian left is just a trend in authoritarianism. This incarnation will eventually collapse from its crumbling image and antagonism of the plurality (in this case cissexual European males). Unfortunately, authoritarianism will remain, and it will come in the form of reactionaries, and reactionaries have the advantage of better pandering to human emotions and not marginalizing the plurality. Pride is more powerful than shame.
Humanity likes to be in-control of things, which is why authoritarianism is so seductive. Liberty is constantly at threat by both human wants and very real necessities. A balance is hard to find, especially when other values conflict with rights.
I can give my own example. I am sometimes amused by the utterly asinine and embarrassing things people will say with their own names attached to their words, some things so stupid that it makes your average /v/irgin look wise. Despite my amusement of the foolishness that goes on Twitter, I am tempted to support any policy that would silence people who have their account linked to their own names. It's not just because I feel that it would make the conversation better, but also because it would be for their own good to deny them the rope they use to hang themselves. It feels right, but I don't think it's justified. If people want to destroy their own faces, what right do I have to deny that? Why should I deny them a learning experience? Why should I silence them for things that I may not like? If someone really thinks something needs to be said, then others can simply support, rebut, or discuss. I guess it depends on which is worse: noise or silence.
