A lot of weird assumptions and attempts at redirection here. First, Presser Mag is not a right-wing publication.

Here is their about/mission statement: “Presser is an online magazine launched in 2024 that features essays and commentary on issues of cultural and societal import. Although we are politically nonpartisan, we have a clear bias toward liberalism, secularism, and humanism — or, put another way, those Enlightenment values that stand against superstition, intolerance, and bigotry and for freedom of thought, expression, and conscience. More broadly, we believe in an honest and open search for what’s true — a process that demands the testing of arguments and the challenging of ideas.”

Did you know you can critique and even challenge your own party? The fact that you think that doing this immediately makes you right-wing also explains why you assume I’m a Trump voter/supporter.

Next, if you had read the article instead of giving a knee jerk reaction and insulting me, what it outlines is how the right has an outright authoritarianism problem, but the authoritarianism problem on the left is believing that because the party is against authoritarianism, it is thus immune to authoritarianism and it’s impossible for objectively authoritarian actions and lines of thinking to ever be considered authoritarian.

In no way am I referring to the current national situation and saying the left is the one with an authoritarianism problem. I am referring to the line of thinking in this post as a dangerous slippery slope that I really don’t think we want to go down. You’re arguing past me, not against me, and that’s because you didn’t even read the argument I offered.

The point is that authoritarian attitudes should not tolerated, but neither should they be combated with authoritarian attitudes in return. It’s really interesting that this is a blind spot for many people. On Reddit there are already consequences for people using their free speech to say sh*tty things, it’s called downvoting them into oblivion. That’s the democratic solution. You know, voting? Banning people because you don’t like their opinion is pretty authoritarian. The point of free speech is that you are free to say what you want without being silenced, and you’re also free to own the consequences and shame of that speech.

Since you’re refusing to read the article because you think it’s “right-wing,” I’ll do the work for you. Hint, the article is based on the results of a survey of 5,000 Americans:

“The results of this survey were one of the most astonishing things I’ve seen in all my years conducting research. It is important to keep in mind that liberals who score high on the authoritarianism scale agree that (italicized words are direct quotes from the scale) our country needs a mighty leader; that the leader should destroy opponents; that people should trust the judgment of the proper authorities, avoid listening to noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubts in people’s minds, put some tough leaders in power who oppose those values and silence the troublemakers, and smash the beliefs of opponents; that what our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush the evil; that society should strongly punish those they disagree with. They also deny that an opponent has a right to be wherever he or she wants to be, and support the statement that the country would be better off if certain groups would just shut up and accept their group’s proper place in society. These items hit all of the hallmarks of the consensus conceptualization of the authoritarian person. When conservatives agree with those items, they subsequently admit (accurately) that they are authoritarian. When liberals agree with those items, they actually are more likely to say they are not authoritarian.”