this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2025
126 points (97.0% liked)
Slop.
425 readers
594 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Dumb anti-communism aside,
Britain/Netherlands still have a monarchy (and there is actual domestic opposition to them, since they aren't as powerless as the PR says).
France had De Gaulle. Erdoğan is not a dictator. Putin, even if you hate him did actually win the elections (and no, skirting around term limits does not make you a dictator).
Zelensky is literally serving an unelected term. It's constitutional yes, but that just makes him a constitutional dictator.
Re Zelensky, forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't one of the current defining qualities of a dictator their brutality and fascistic rhetoric? Or is this framing of him based on the powers he has access to within the framework of the Ukrainian government?
I am using the definition "is this person serving at the highest office there with a legal electoral mandate from the people?"
Which is frankly an idiotic definition of "dictator", but it suffices to critique this infographic from its own liberal logic, as in "you didn't even get the basic googlable facts correct"
The "real" (one that I think is most useful) definition of dictator is one who has the power of being able to use dictat (executive order). That is of course, the literal origin of the term from the roman republics, where "dictator" was an official position, that you were appointed to and could serve for a maximum of 1 year and was only used in times of emergencies/wars. It's kind of funny how the liberal understanding of the term is in many ways the literal opposite of the actual historical position that inspired it.
A "Dictator" as I see it is someone rules above collective leadership (most modern presidents are dictators) a and "dictatorship" is a government that can makes major decisions without referendum ("liberal democracies" are basically 100% of the time dictatorships of the bourgeoise).
I knew about the origin of the word, just didn't match context of his the word is used now, so didn't seem especially relevant.
That last bit is useful and appreciated. I'm just very used to the term carrying a different negative connotation (ie, not related to the bourgeoise), so the framing felt odd without additional context for myself. Ty!
I just noticed a spelling error. I said that dictatorships rule with referendum, whereas they actually rule without referendum. I hope I didn't cause any confusion.
I figured as much. Ty
The context of the way the word is used now is purposely vague and vibes-based. It is functionally useless in political science discussion that way other than 'leader of the designated enemy'.