> a temporary restriction on liberties for a legitimate purpose is not authoritarian.

It seems like you are arguing this on the basis that "authoritarian" is inherently negative. I'd argue that it is authoritarian, and justifiably so! In these circumstances, being authoritarian is absolutely the right thing even if in other circumstances it may not be.

Likewise with "appeal to authority": it applies regardless of the legitimacy of the authority. The key point being that someone being an expert in something is not a good refutation to a substantial argument against their point of view: experts can be wrong.

Feels like that's playing definitional games. Why not just own up to the fact that the lockdowns are authoritarian to some degree, and then go on to say that doesn't mean they aren't sensible?

I feel like no rational person would stand behind 'you are incorrect because what you are saying sounds like a conspiracy theory and there have never been conspiracy theories.' This is a straw-man. An easy-to-dismiss opposing narrative. And one that can be used to drown out a wide array of incoming narratives by surreptitiously reducing them to this one, then dismissing this one as it was basically designed to be dismissable.

I would say not -all- of the lock downs are authoritarian, but -some- are. Some of the restrictions simply make no sense, and often some special interest is let off the hook while the smaller players are left in limbo or are restricted. Which in the end helps the big players, and puts the smaller ones out of business/at risk. Do I really think that that wasn't lobbied hard for? I'm not naive.

We're obviously talking about the ongoing Covid-19 crisis.