Advertisement
by Oppermenia » Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:49 am
by Petrasylvania » Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:50 am
Oppermenia wrote:Guys, all this you're talking about depends on your definition of a dictator.
You may consider a dictator an autocrat and the opposite of a democracy. However, a dictator is really someone who has absolute power. Or it can be, at least.
And so, a dictatorship can also be elected by the people. Like, the people want this guy as their dictator, so they elect him. The way Chin's government is described is a "democratic dictatorship".
A dictatorship has multiple definitions, and can change depending on who you're dealing with. But a dictatorship could be benevolent, or elected, so long as they have absolute power or something to simulate absolute power.
Btw, in my opinion, Trump is no different than Kim Jong. He wants to be a dictator, and could be on his way.
by The Gipper » Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:51 am
Tinhampton wrote:The Gipper wrote:her position was invented out of thin air just for her.
I defer to Article 59f of the Constitution of Myanmar.
by Kanaria » Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:53 am
by Kanaria » Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:53 am
Conoga wrote:Something something Hilary Clinton
by Page » Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:54 am
The Gipper wrote:
I still can't help but feel that she had a little extra shielding from being called out because she was a female head of government, even if you're probably right that she also was shielded because she gained power through an election. My point was perhaps we are slower to recognize female authoritarians because of our own views about what it is to be feminine (even in the ultra-left US media).
by Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft » Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:55 am
by The Gipper » Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:56 am
But I wonder if similar defenses could not be made for leaders in Iran that probably, ultimately, could not snap the nation to a liberal direction because to a large part the "real power" lies in the revolutionary guard? Or to any number of historical authoritarian dictators that had the support of a military apparatus.Xiaodong wrote:Ang Suu Kyi is complicit in genocide, but she herself is not the real power in Myanmar - the military still hold that role and if they wanted to could probably get rid of her if she kicked up a fuss. She's also lionised in the western press not because she is a women or came to power in elections, but because she has endured a Nelson Mandela-esque personal struggle (being under house arrest for decades unable to see her family after winning an election fairly in 1988) against a very nasty military government.
by Petrasylvania » Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:56 am
by Kanaria » Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:02 am
by Kanaria » Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:03 am
by Strength and Order » Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:09 am
by United Muscovite Nations » Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:26 am
Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft wrote:Historically, there have been many female absolute monarchs (aka dictators) around the world
by The United Colonies of Earth » Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:47 am
Strength and Order wrote: by Strength and Order » Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:09 pm
According to NSG I could be elected, suspend elections, and horde all power for myself - but so long as I don't orchestrate mass killings I wouldn't be a dictator. Well, alright then. Sorry to burst your propaganda bubbles, but while disastrous human rights records may be the norm for dictatorships they are not a requirement. I understand if that conflicts with the narrative you want to send about how only democratically elected leaders can be good leaders or people, for that matter. Despite what you may believe or what you wish to believe, negative connotations for the words 'Tyrant', 'Despot', 'Dictator', and 'Autocrat' are recent inventions created from the pro-democratic bias of the victorious Allied Powers in the Second World War. History, however, has shown us that all-powerful individuals can rule without being mass-murdering psychopaths. But who cares about them, right? Obviously they weren't "true" dictators because they didn't slaughter innocents en masse. History is indeed written by the victors.
AutoModerator wrote:It seems like you are talking about the popular but ultimately flawed and false "winners write history" trope!
It is a very lazy and ultimately harmful way to introduce the concept of bias. There isn't really a perfectly pithy way to cover such a complex topic, but much better than winners writing history is writers writing history. This is more useful than it initially seems because until fairly recently the literate were a minority, and those with enough literary training to actually write historical narratives formed an even smaller and more distinct class within that. To give a few examples, Genghis Khan must surely go down as one of the great victors in all history, but he is generally viewed quite unfavorably in practically all sources, because his conquests tended to harm the literary classes. Or the senatorial elite can be argued to have "lost" the struggle at the end of the Republic that eventually produced Augustus, but the Roman literary classes were fairly ensconced within (or at least sympathetic towards) that order, and thus we often see the fall of the Republic presented negatively.
Of course, writers are a diverse set, and so this is far from a magical solution to solving the problems of bias. The painful truth is, each source simply needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
by The United Colonies of Earth » Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:49 am
by Dogmeat » Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:55 am
by United Muscovite Nations » Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:57 am
by Oppermenia » Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:00 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:The United Colonies of Earth wrote:They both are ascribed absolute power either in fact or form. The one difference as that most kings inherit the power rather than bludgeoning someone for it. Rather minor distinction to me, frankly.
It's quite a bit different as monarchs and dictators have different bases of power. A monarch relies on a traditional power structure, usually dependent on family ties and relation. Whereas a dictator's power comes from more modern sources like bureaucratic or military support.
by The United Colonies of Earth » Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:00 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:The United Colonies of Earth wrote:They both are ascribed absolute power either in fact or form. The one difference as that most kings inherit the power rather than bludgeoning someone for it. Rather minor distinction to me, frankly.
It's quite a bit different as monarchs and dictators have different bases of power. A monarch relies on a traditional power structure, usually dependent on family ties and relation. Whereas a dictator's power comes from more modern sources like bureaucratic or military support.
by Valrifell » Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:05 am
by Xmara » Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:19 am
by United Muscovite Nations » Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:20 am
Oppermenia wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:It's quite a bit different as monarchs and dictators have different bases of power. A monarch relies on a traditional power structure, usually dependent on family ties and relation. Whereas a dictator's power comes from more modern sources like bureaucratic or military support.
But why does it matter?
If someone has absolute power, they can be considered a dictator. Being elected or inheriting the position doesn't change that, so long as you've gained absolute power. I think that's really the definition of dictator that matters - - someone with absolute power.
by Rio Cana » Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:45 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Alafiribela, Corporate Collective Salvation, Forsher, Great Sappho, Holy united islands, Hurdergaryp, Kenmoria, Ors Might, Phobos Drilling and Manufacturing, Port Carverton, Senkaku, Shrillland, Tungstan, Valrifall, Venoano, Warvick, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement