Do you know a word for an authoritarian who is wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

I was watching the whole FIFA bribery thing, with some detachment because I am not a sports fan, but with fascination for the way powerful people can stand up in public and insist that wrong is right. Last night Sepp Blatter, who has refused to answer seemingly valid questions about his own alleged bribery, told the gathered FIFA members that "I thought we were living in world of fair play and respect and discipline, but I see this is no longer the case."

I lost a job several years ago because of the behaviour of a dishonest and bullying boss, and very similar phrases were used to describe me by the company, which took his side - I had been "disloyal", "not a team player", "did not walk the walk", etc., rather than taking issue with the various activities the boss was involved in. (He was quietly sidelined and placed under supervision, after they got rid of me, although never disciplined).

Some people described this behaviour, where a figure of authority says something that is unsupported (or blatantly false) and insists that everyone accept it because of who says it, as "management by diktat", "authoritarianism", "boorishness" or "argument by authority". I never found a really good, punchy, single word description for an authority who is wrong - do you have any suggestion?

"Dad"

How about "Authoritarian"? They have nothing to gain by being logical, because if they cared, nobody would listen to them.

Let me be very optimistic and suggest "doomed" and "disposable".
... but also "still convenient to some".

How doomed they are or as how disposable they are perceived by the people, who keep them in power because they are still kind of useful, varies widely.

Every dictator so far in history has been/will be toppled and when Mr. Blattert hits his 90s FIFA will miraculously decide that there are people skilled, connected and experienced enough to replace him. Might I also suggest, that should he get run over by a bus tomorrow, this certainly would not spell the end of FIFA.

The really tough nut to crack in your head is the factor time and that it takes often a lot of lies and in worst case scenarios victims until the perpetrator is gone or helped along the way to the exit.

I think it's called politics and it pervades everything.

Or in Bentham's slightly adapted words,
"What after all is a community? It's the sum of the individuals that compromise it."

I doubt I have ever heard the word "authoritarian" used in a positive or neutral way. Using the word implies that the idea or person being described is right just because they say so, and they lack merit otherwise. People who are being authoritarian describe their actions/beliefs as "rational", or "moral", or "practical" or "loyal" anything but authoritarian.

You're just learning the lesson aspies take a long time to learn: not to take what people say at face value.

So, "authoritarian" already implies that they are wrong, thats the word you are looking for. Because if they weren't wrong they'd be called something else.

"Authoritarian" just does not convey the effect for me - I have worked for authoritarian bosses, and lived under authoritarian regimes (religious and miltary dictatorships), where in most aspects the authoritarian was "right" in some from of reference.

The boss that caused me real grief, on the other hand, would tell an obvious lie in a staff meeting, where 20 to 30 people would just accept the falsehood without blinking. Sepp Blatter (who has just been re-elected) reminded me of the experience. It was authoritarianism on an altogether different plane, where the lie was an expression of power and accepting it was an expression of submission. The dictators tended to punish people who disagreed with them, but not foment opportunities for dissent.

Shouldn't this topic be placed in the work and finding a job sub-forum?

No, it is a question about scientific / philosophical terminology.

Further to the earlier discussion, there is a good example of authoritarian statements that are not intrinsically wrong in an interview with Mike Weightman in the New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... shima.html). He says "All governments need advice on how to react when these things happen, and it would be better if it came from an international, independent body", but then "It's not for me to second-guess what Japan should or shouldn't have done" in response to "Do you think TEPCO, which owns Fukushima, should have asked for help earlier?" - a classical, authoritarian version of "you are too little to discuss this with".

In any walk of life, my definition of someone who mistreats someone else: bully. I've had more than my fair share of run ins with them. It started with my parents, ran through both boys & girls in school starting in kindergarten all the way through HS, there were teachers & principals, bosses, & coworkers...not one is less unpleasant than another. Doesn't matter what title they hold. Usually bullies have some position of authority over the person who is picked on. Unfortunately, our society loves bullies & almost always takes the bully's side while blaming the person who suffers the wrath from the bully. I still don't know why this is....it just is. It's wrong & stupid, but bullies win & the bullied lose. I hope someday that things turn around. I'd love nothing more than see a bully get his just dessert.

Human - is that the word?

I think in this situation hypocrite works well.

Despot

1a : a Byzantine emperor or prince b : a bishop or patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church c : an Italian hereditary prince or military leader during the Renaissance
2a : a ruler with absolute power and authority b : a person exercising power tyrannically


Tyrant

1a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally


How about "Despotic Tyrant" or "Tyrranical Despot"?

idiot?

A$$ Hat

Hypocrite?

Authoritarians, by definition, can't be wrong. It must be you... j/k...