Last week, I have made a post talking about the current state of human rights around the world, focusing on men's issues and feminist dictatorships. A "feminist dictatorship", in the context, is a country where the political and legal systems satisfy two conditions:

1- The country is politically a dictatorship (which means at least some fundamental human rights are absent, such as the right to habeas corpus, legal defense and representation, or the right to rebellion)

2- All or some of the fundamental rights that are absent are absent to men but not to women

I gave some examples. I gave the example of Brazil, where men do not have the right to Habeas Corpus when under feminist allegations. Recently, a bill was passed, where "causing a woman psychological distress" is considered a crime that is punishable with two years in jail. Crimes against women in Brazil are punished by special "women precincts" where the regular legal system does not apply: in particular, there is no right to Habeas Corpus. This is enough to satisfy the two prerequisites above and call the current Brazilian system a feminist dictatorship. The same is true of many other countries.

This is a reality and not a joke, and I wished people could see things through technical knowledge and basic logical reasoning, instead of simply falling for a propaganda or marketing mentality and judging things by how they sound (which is pre-cognitive response) instead of what they mean (which is what comes after cognition). People like to laugh at the idea that there are feminist dictatorships around the world, but that's a reality whether you find it laughable or not, and the definition above that I have used to characterize it is far from biased. This is how knowledge is built in any scientific discipline. Political science is not an exception.

The post I made was deleted without any sort of explanation. Here is the link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/nx3cdh/feminist_dictatorships_around_the_world_are/

I cannot be sure what the reason for deleting the post was. I have put a lot of effort, both intellectual and emotional, into it, since it is not easy to try to rationalize something that has taken so many lives, including people that were close to me.

However, there were a lot of negative responses about I mentioning the Capitol. People latter justified those responses by saying: "it was the largest paragraph in your text, of course people would respond to this section the most". However, it only became the largest paragraph after a lot of edits addressing the responses I received.

Now, it is impossible to take a sub seriously if I cannot talk about human rights as a whole, without being unilaterally censored by mods. Men's rights are a subset of human rights, and if no person in the US has some fundamental right, that applies to men too.

Again, it should not be emotional or controversial to make passing statements about the current state of human rights in any country, the US included. Human rights are not something subjective, are not something that depends on ideology and are not something that depends on narratives. The state of human rights in a country should be assessed by simple questions and answers: "are people being tortured in the US"? "Yes". Then that's a bad news for human rights. "But they are traitors, they worked for wikileaks, they this, they that". It doesn't matter. There is no "but". Human rights in an objective assessment of whether people have some inalienable rights or not. Human rights are something that can be measured in objective terms, much like GDP or HDI, and countries are tracked by these indicators. I'm talking pre-Capitol. Human rights conditions are deteriorating in the US for 20 years since the Patriot Act, that doesn't seem to be reversible and this is affecting and will continue to affect the rest of the world. People being tortured in Guantanamo for leaking governmental information for wikileaks is a clear example.

Noticeably, human rights indicators do not take into consideration why some punishment is being applied in a human being. For example pro-CCP agents have personal interest in justify why Uighurs are sent to concentration camps. These kinds of actors will have personal interest in that assessments about the human rights situation in China be considered controversial or turned into heated debates. But this is not how human rights assessments work. Are people being sent to concentration camps? Are, say, people being flogged alive? Then that's bad news for human rights. It doesn't matter who these people are or why they are submitted to that. That part of the discussion has nothing to do with human rights. This is not exclusive to human rights, this is, in essence, what a "right" means. A right is something that is not open to discussion. If it is, then you already do not have that right anymore.

In 2014, in Taiwan, there was something called the Sunflower Student Movement. Students jumped the fences of the legislative chamber and stayed there for weeks, preventing the congresspeople to meet, in order to block ongoing negotiations with China that they considered would go against national freedom. These students were not deprived of their fundamental human rights, such as the right to Habeas Corpus, legal representation, physical integrity, etc. Good news for human rights in 2014 Taiwan.

In contrast, in 2021, people have jumped the fences of the legislative chamber in Washington D.C. They were put under the Patriot Act, under terrorist allegations, and were deprived of fundamental human rights. The vast majority of people were under these charges for the mere fact of stepping into the US legislative chamber unattended. This is not me saying, it is the legal suit against those citizens that did not participate in any violent action besides stepping into the building.

This is an objective decrease in the status of human rights which is not subject to discussion and which has factual implications for human rights movements around the world. If I cannot mention objective historical events, specially events that are as important for human rights in general, and men's rights in particular, then it's clear that it is not impossible to have a honest conversation anymore. From the moment I can't mention historical events, current legislation, legislative practices, governmental violations of human rights, and anything that might directly or indirectly affect your right to come and go, because it has been made "too controversial" of a topic by the media, the same media that vilifies and dehumanizes men, then that same media has already won this sub.

I described the global legislative context, or, in other words, the "how" of how are governments around the world being able to establish dictatorships while maintaining the (midiatic) appearance of a democracy, and came finally to the specific instance of feminist dictatorships (which I defined as above) and their terrible humanitarian implications and death tolls. In summary, I simply mentioned the fact that certain previously unalienable human rights in the US are now alienable under the Patriot Act, and the important example of the Patriot Act being applied to US citizens that trespass legislative buildings. This affects the rest of the world, since the US is usually identified with a backer of democracy in the international setting. India, for example, has labeled pacific opposition groups as domestic terrorists and has given life sentences. What I’m saying is that this is new fashion. This might affect men’s rights groups in the future. The scaling of global authoritarianism is almost a consensus between historians for three decades now. Awareness about this phenomenon is extremely important. But, simply because I mentioned some event that the media has made "controversial", even though I only mentioned it under the lenses of the factual human rights implications, the post was deleted without explanation. So that's why I'm leaving.