We can still protest. We still have a legal right to free speech. It’s not worth the hyperbole. It also perpetuates a misconception that authoritarianism doesn’t allow for protests and free speech.
The model we are emulating is competitive authoritarianism. For the past four decades it has been an increasingly popular form of government.
There will be elections. There will be protests. There will be opposing parties and anti-government speech.
But the tables will be tilted heavily. They will allow small opposition wins, but the majority will stay with one party.
Speech won’t be illegal, but you will be harassed. Asked questions by law enforcement. Press will be sued.
They will leverage the private/public surveillance apparatus to monitor public sentiment on all topics and how far they can push (and release pressure when needed) and what opposition to monitor/harass. Decades of data from political science, sociology, and psychology will make this an art.
It’s dangerous if we perpetuate the idea that authoritarianism only exists when we can’t protest or say anti-government things. The underlying institutional foundations are being changed now. The referees are being captured now. Press and citizens can legally say what they want, but the chilling effect is happening now.
We need more mobilization. Hyperbolic takes and not being clear on what authoritarianism actually looks like in the 21st century will make it harder.
this nerdy declaration of facts serves what purpose? the OP’s points would ring true with your average american and make them think deeper about the culture they live in and the dynamics swirling around them.
right-wingers don’t care about facts and it would appear year after year after year that militantly pointing to all these obvious contradictions and mistruths never accomplishes anything, no more than it does to the religious zealot that ignores the gospels.
but anyone left of center is expected to lay down absolute undisputable facts at all times.
We can still protest. We still have a legal right to free speech. It’s not worth the hyperbole. It also perpetuates a misconception that authoritarianism doesn’t allow for protests and free speech.
The model we are emulating is competitive authoritarianism. For the past four decades it has been an increasingly popular form of government.
There will be elections. There will be protests. There will be opposing parties and anti-government speech.
But the tables will be tilted heavily. They will allow small opposition wins, but the majority will stay with one party.
Speech won’t be illegal, but you will be harassed. Asked questions by law enforcement. Press will be sued.
They will leverage the private/public surveillance apparatus to monitor public sentiment on all topics and how far they can push (and release pressure when needed) and what opposition to monitor/harass. Decades of data from political science, sociology, and psychology will make this an art.
It’s dangerous if we perpetuate the idea that authoritarianism only exists when we can’t protest or say anti-government things. The underlying institutional foundations are being changed now. The referees are being captured now. Press and citizens can legally say what they want, but the chilling effect is happening now.
We need more mobilization. Hyperbolic takes and not being clear on what authoritarianism actually looks like in the 21st century will make it harder.
this nerdy declaration of facts serves what purpose? the OP’s points would ring true with your average american and make them think deeper about the culture they live in and the dynamics swirling around them.
right-wingers don’t care about facts and it would appear year after year after year that militantly pointing to all these obvious contradictions and mistruths never accomplishes anything, no more than it does to the religious zealot that ignores the gospels.
but anyone left of center is expected to lay down absolute undisputable facts at all times.
who does that help?