Of course, authority is a pretty fucked up concept as implemented in our society. It's almost always nothing more than the threat of violence for not subsuming your own needs to the needs of another. The other usually claiming that privilege through nonsense like birthright, wealth, closeness to power structures or similar.
Anyone who uses such a ridiculous thing is at best a fool. Calling out injustice and laughing at awful people is definitely a green flag.
Consider say the difference between interacting with a cop and a firefighter. The cop claims authority, do what they say or be tortured into compliance. The firefighter has no authority and yet I'll bet you trust everything they say a lot more than the cop and are far more willing to cooperate.
I'm infamous for understanding to an extent, but that's like saying "Japanese police are bad, therefore being in the Yakuza is a green flag". I too am not that fond of authority, but that doesn't make every robber a Robin Hood.
Violent thugs claim authority regardless of the source. The cops claim the law enables them to torture you into compliance, the gangs claim it by right of might.
The reason is not relevant, laugh at them all (where doing so won't get you killed).
This doesn't mean fuck rules or cooperation. If my friends and I play a board game we all agree to be bound by collective rules for the pursuit of some mutual fun. Of course nobody has authority in the same sense, anyone is free to say "I don't think this rule is fun, can we change it?" or "I'm not having fun right now, I'm sorry but I'd like to stop playing".
I love people who help others, I just also love it when those helpful people burst out laughing when someone says "that's Mr Bossman to you!".
As to your reply to other person, yeah a lot of people don't respect authority and laugh at it. I think it's a green flag. Some people kiss the ring and lick the boot. Those people scare me because I can't think of any reason except that they dream of being over another.
There's a lot of writing on subtle details of sorts of authority and it's a bit of a problem with language.
You could say that you voluntarily grant the firefighter temporary authority in some circumstances or whatever but to avoid quibbling over language for essays let's agree that there is a difference between someone imposing authority vs an individual deciding to believe someone should be listened to because of some domain expertise.
It's probably due to autism traits but "mocking authority" sounds like just mocking anyone relying on previous experience or education rather being able to justify their position in the situation at hand.
Compare to the logical fallacy of "relying on authority"
When it comes to fire safety, I don't need to know exactly with sources why some areas need to be "fire cells" while other areas, similar in my eyes, doesn't if the information comes from a fire fighter. I rely completely on his/her authority on the matter and doesn't need any more evidence to let the fire fighter enforce those laws and regulations.
Im guessing that in this context "authority" in the thread starter text is shorthand for "perceived authority by the enforcer without real and safe recourse for the person having authority enforced upon"?
Since both the cop and fire fighter have means of legal repercussions if their authority is not followed I mean.
I'm not sure I follow. For the purposes of my example the firefighter has no legal recourse if you don't listen. They're just random volunteers where I live.
I don't want to get too hung up on definitions because that's counter productive I think. So what I'm talking about is that sometimes humans rely on power, real or perceived, in order to demand that others subsume their own desires and submit to those of the powerful.
Examples are police and other violent gangs - do what I say or I shoot you, capitalists - work for me or I will starve you, shitty parents - do what I say or I will hurt you.
I am calling that authority, notice that at no point is there consent from the person authority is being claimed over (it's not consent if it's coerced).
On the other hand people sometimes agree to perform certain roles with each other, or to be bound by certain rules in order to undertake some endeavour. For example when I am teaching my niece science she agrees to solve the problems I ask her to solve, but there is no coercion here. She is free to say at any moment "no" and I am free to either withdraw my offer to teach, ask a different question, propose a break or whatever else. Similarly working groups might elect someone among them to manage a project, but this isn't authority (as I have defined above) if they are free to relect a project manager, refuse directions or whatever.
Various writers have waffled to varying extents trying to pin down specific definitions. I side with those who think it's clearer to distinguish between the two social arrangements by not calling the second one authority.
Where I live the fire fighters are a professional force tasked with emergency tasks as well as enforcing compliance with fire safety regulations, as an example an association I work with had to pay a fine due to having some of the smoke detectors non functioning. Thats an authority I have no issue with, with goes back to the word "mocking" authority rather than "questioning" authority.
One sounds like the refusal of having another party authority over oneself, the latter implies a valuation if the authority is proper, fitting and reasonable or not.
but it's not the legal repurcussions that make you listen. If anything they undermine, as you need to establish whether advice is genuine or somebody throwing their weight around.
Sounds awesome!
Mocking authority is a green flag?
Of course, authority is a pretty fucked up concept as implemented in our society. It's almost always nothing more than the threat of violence for not subsuming your own needs to the needs of another. The other usually claiming that privilege through nonsense like birthright, wealth, closeness to power structures or similar.
Anyone who uses such a ridiculous thing is at best a fool. Calling out injustice and laughing at awful people is definitely a green flag.
Consider say the difference between interacting with a cop and a firefighter. The cop claims authority, do what they say or be tortured into compliance. The firefighter has no authority and yet I'll bet you trust everything they say a lot more than the cop and are far more willing to cooperate.
I'm infamous for understanding to an extent, but that's like saying "Japanese police are bad, therefore being in the Yakuza is a green flag". I too am not that fond of authority, but that doesn't make every robber a Robin Hood.
I missed this.
Violent thugs claim authority regardless of the source. The cops claim the law enables them to torture you into compliance, the gangs claim it by right of might.
The reason is not relevant, laugh at them all (where doing so won't get you killed).
This doesn't mean fuck rules or cooperation. If my friends and I play a board game we all agree to be bound by collective rules for the pursuit of some mutual fun. Of course nobody has authority in the same sense, anyone is free to say "I don't think this rule is fun, can we change it?" or "I'm not having fun right now, I'm sorry but I'd like to stop playing".
I love people who help others, I just also love it when those helpful people burst out laughing when someone says "that's Mr Bossman to you!".
As to your reply to other person, yeah a lot of people don't respect authority and laugh at it. I think it's a green flag. Some people kiss the ring and lick the boot. Those people scare me because I can't think of any reason except that they dream of being over another.
The firefighter is an authority on fire safety, and shouldn't be mocked for that authority
There's a lot of writing on subtle details of sorts of authority and it's a bit of a problem with language.
You could say that you voluntarily grant the firefighter temporary authority in some circumstances or whatever but to avoid quibbling over language for essays let's agree that there is a difference between someone imposing authority vs an individual deciding to believe someone should be listened to because of some domain expertise.
It's probably due to autism traits but "mocking authority" sounds like just mocking anyone relying on previous experience or education rather being able to justify their position in the situation at hand. Compare to the logical fallacy of "relying on authority"
When it comes to fire safety, I don't need to know exactly with sources why some areas need to be "fire cells" while other areas, similar in my eyes, doesn't if the information comes from a fire fighter. I rely completely on his/her authority on the matter and doesn't need any more evidence to let the fire fighter enforce those laws and regulations.
Im guessing that in this context "authority" in the thread starter text is shorthand for "perceived authority by the enforcer without real and safe recourse for the person having authority enforced upon"?
Since both the cop and fire fighter have means of legal repercussions if their authority is not followed I mean.
I'm not sure I follow. For the purposes of my example the firefighter has no legal recourse if you don't listen. They're just random volunteers where I live.
I don't want to get too hung up on definitions because that's counter productive I think. So what I'm talking about is that sometimes humans rely on power, real or perceived, in order to demand that others subsume their own desires and submit to those of the powerful.
Examples are police and other violent gangs - do what I say or I shoot you, capitalists - work for me or I will starve you, shitty parents - do what I say or I will hurt you.
I am calling that authority, notice that at no point is there consent from the person authority is being claimed over (it's not consent if it's coerced).
On the other hand people sometimes agree to perform certain roles with each other, or to be bound by certain rules in order to undertake some endeavour. For example when I am teaching my niece science she agrees to solve the problems I ask her to solve, but there is no coercion here. She is free to say at any moment "no" and I am free to either withdraw my offer to teach, ask a different question, propose a break or whatever else. Similarly working groups might elect someone among them to manage a project, but this isn't authority (as I have defined above) if they are free to relect a project manager, refuse directions or whatever.
Various writers have waffled to varying extents trying to pin down specific definitions. I side with those who think it's clearer to distinguish between the two social arrangements by not calling the second one authority.
Where I live the fire fighters are a professional force tasked with emergency tasks as well as enforcing compliance with fire safety regulations, as an example an association I work with had to pay a fine due to having some of the smoke detectors non functioning. Thats an authority I have no issue with, with goes back to the word "mocking" authority rather than "questioning" authority.
One sounds like the refusal of having another party authority over oneself, the latter implies a valuation if the authority is proper, fitting and reasonable or not.
but it's not the legal repurcussions that make you listen. If anything they undermine, as you need to establish whether advice is genuine or somebody throwing their weight around.
Yeah, that sounds like a fun dude (I'm assuming dude given the kind of work he does). I've never met him, though.
my wife is the light of my life .
deleted by creator