On 2/13/2026 at 9:50 PM, swansont said:

What is your definition of authoritarianism?

The authoritarianism is the situation when people in a country can't vote for some changes they want, for example increasing of equality in the country, or e.g. prohibition of the abundance of transgender athletes in big sports. Sorry for my last example, I understand that you don't like this theme (since you support the Left), but I can use this for illustraion of my views. When the people in Poland voted for PiS, they demanded exactly this, but they were unable to achive what they voted for, because in 2023 the PiS party was replaced by a coalition of Left parties. I want to repeat my point that the Polish people voted in 2023 for parties other than PiS not because they stopped wanting these changes, but because PiS made some bad laws in other subjects.

If during the rule of PiS some referendum in Poland was performed, the new parties would be unable to cancel the decision of the Polish people. But in most Western countries, the ruling elite understands that such referendums can threat its power, so the referendums are not performed.

I see exactly the same situation in Russia: Putin states that since the Russians have voted for him on last President elections, this means that the Russians "support all things he does", but in fact of course they don't support such things as blocking of youtube or messengers. When the Russians voted for Putin, they voted for "stability", not for this.

11 minutes ago, Linkey said:

The authoritarianism is the situation when people in a country can't vote for some changes they want, for example increasing of equality in the country, or e.g. prohibition of the abundance of transgender athletes in big sports.

That’s a different definition than most people have for it.

There are some restaurants that declare “no substitutions” on the menu, so if you don’t want the vegetable that comes with the entree, that’s too bad. You can’t get peas instead of cauliflower, even though you want the chicken dish and baked potato. According to your definition, that’s autocracy. Which is, of course, ridiculous. You can’t just co-opt words and expect to have a reasonable discussion.

As has been pointed out, this is an issue of choice and compromise. People have different priorities, and you’re presenting this as if they should have monolithic wants. That’s just naive idiocy, not autocracy. The world doesn’t work that way, nor (IMO) is that a desirable goal.

11 minutes ago, Linkey said:

Sorry for my last example, I understand that you don't like this theme (since you support the Left), but I can use this for illustraion of my views. When the people in Poland voted for PiS, they demanded exactly this, but they were unable to achive what they voted for, because in 2023 the PiS party was replaced by a coalition of Left parties. I want to repeat my point that the Polish people voted in 2023 for parties other than PiS not because they stopped wanting these changes, but because PiS made some bad laws in other subjects.

Given your posting history, I’m not inclined to assume that this has more than a passing similarity to the actual truth.

11 minutes ago, Linkey said:

If during the rule of PiS some referendum in Poland was performed, the new parties would be unable to cancel the decision of the Polish people. But in most Western countries, the ruling elite understands that such referendums can threat its power, so the referendums are not performed.

I see exactly the same situation in Russia: Putin states that since the Russians have voted for him on last President elections, this means that the Russians "support all things he does", but in fact of course they don't support such things as blocking of youtube or messengers. When the Russians voted for Putin, they voted for "stability", not for this.

Some things that make Putin an autocrat would be the fact that there is no other candidate because he jails and murders his opponent and is not accountable in any meaningful way.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

There are some restaurants that declare “no substitutions” on the menu, so if you don’t want the vegetable that comes with the entree, that’s too bad. You can’t get peas instead of cauliflower, even though you want the chicken dish and baked potato. According to your definition, that’s autocracy. Which is, of course, ridiculous. You can’t just co-opt words and expect to have a reasonable discussion.

In addition, folks may want contradictory things, say higher levels of governmental services as well as a massive reduction in taxes. Or voting for/against things that are not real, such as chemtrails. Folks that equate compromise (or a shared reality) with autocracy are, IMO, most susceptible to an authoritarianism.

The reason being that democratic system are held accountable against certain standards, whereas an autocrat can support a false reality (e.g., sports are overrun with transgender folks) and also make contradictory promises. Such as using tariffs to lower taxes. They are aware that they are not going to be tested against reality, as their plan is to consolidate power to such a degree that they will be in place regardless if they actually are improving things for the people.

5 hours ago, Linkey said:

I want to repeat my point that the Polish people voted in 2023 for parties other than PiS not because they stopped wanting these changes, but because PiS made some bad laws in other subjects.

Oh yes, the "some bad laws" included trying to dismantle the judiciary, which of course is a hallmark of authoritarianism. But of course the issue of banning less than a percent of the population in certain sports is pretty much of equal importance to having some sort of functioning democracy.

OP basically says that systems that are in the way authoritarianism are the real authoritarians.