Hm. I can see that relying on an authority to do the flattening would be authoritarianism. So, e.g. using a Constitution or religious doctrine as the basis for the flattening would fall into that class. But if the objective function is endogenous, then it's not authoritarian.
And this is the main point Campbell makes about Wokeism. He claims its dynamism and decentralization is a) why it'll last for awhile and b) is merely a *pseudo* religion, not an actual one. Again, if you buy his rhetoric (which I don't), then Woke flattening is not authoritarian (or any form of censorship). One could argue that LeBron James and Renee Montgomery, in their canceling of Kelly Loeffler, leans toward oligarchy ... i.e. the rich celebrities are the ones flattening other rich celebrities. But that's still not (deep) authoritarianism. On 3/5/21 9:38 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > The flattening is a form of authoritarianism, it seems to me. If those > doing the firing are able to enhance their power, that (in their mind) > resources will ultimately be focused in a more effective way than if many > sub-optimal peaks are allowed. That people need to believe the celebrities > and leaders are worthy of their influence, and the only way to make that case > is to make the contrast strong, by flattening the sub-optimal peaks (cutting > down anything that looks like competition). This problem comes from people > just as much as it comes from the celebrities and leaders. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
