No, not really. OP clearly advocates for "the need of an authority figure" to force his personal views onto others he feels are lacking in the way of morals. OP's puerile take on "shame" is just a thinly veilled desire to oppress everyone and anyone around them that does not comply with his personal views.
> Without shame, many people unfortunately need an authority figure to step in and moderate their behaviour.
This is an argument against relying on authority figures to replace the role of shame and implicit social contract. I honestly don’t know how they could have made that more clear than when they continued with this:
> It will likely result in people reaching for a paternal “strongman” figure and a subsequent slide into (probably) fascism.
Again, the argument is that _without_ shame and a shared social contract, the replacement by explicit state authority to moderate harmful behaviors drifts towards fascism.
The argument is plain wrong. Fascism and nazism were driven by fear and shame from day one. You can find transcriptions from early talks from the dictators and others.
Regarding the role of shame in the rise of fascism (and the NSDAP). I agree it played a role, but I would characterize that as an (all too successful) exploit of human psychology.
My opinion is that “shame” as a basic human emotion does perform an important function in our social fabric, and trying to inoculate ourselves against it en masse is not without its downsides.
> Devaluing shame instead of targeting the parts of the contract that needed to be changed
As the other comment said, you’re also discussing “being shamed” whereas the original comment is about “feeling shame”. Similar but far from identical.