Who are we not allowed to criticize?

[energiewende]

To make it somewhat interesting, speaking only for the Westernized democracies here.

[Metahive]

Christopher Heyerdahl, becuz he's AWZUMSAUCE!

Seriously though, what's the point? If it's what I suspect it is, please take your privileged whining elsewhere.

[Gandalf]

To be needlessly specific, apparently people who have been POTUS aren't allowed to badmouth the current guy.

It makes George Washington cry or something.

[madd0ct0r]

my wife.

and even that's not really 'not allowed' compared to just dangerous

[FTeik]

"If criticism would change anything, it would be forbidden."

Or something like that ... .

[Lord of the Abyss]

Who are we not allowed to criticize?

I can't tell you, because that would be a criticism...

[energiewende]

For those who have misunderstood, it is a reference to the quote of the week:

"Quote of the Week: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire (real name: Francois-Marie Arouet), French writer and philosopher (1694-1778)"

[Metahive]

So how about you start and give some examples of stuff that "we" in "Western Democracies" supposedly can't criticise?

[energiewende]

I limit to established/functional democracies (use whatever word you prefer) because "the government" or "the dictator" is not a very interesting answer.

[madd0ct0r]

possibly you're reading too much into that quote.

[Thanas]

Think of the context of Voltaire's time and you will easily find the answers.

[Dr Roberts]

Umm we can criticise who we want.

[K. A. Pital]

That is easy. Try criticising corporate charity as a sham. Also NSA try to break hard drives with data. Heh.

[Malivotti]

If you are involved with US politics, Israel.

Breast Cancer charities, big no-no.

Any advocate for women's rights/equality no matter how batshit nuts they are.

[Metahive]

Any advocate for women's rights/equality no matter how batshit nuts they are.

I see the vile abuse that's heaped upon feminists like Rebecca Watson, Ophelia Benson and PZ Myers and see you are full of shit. You are totally allowed to criticise them, it's just that they are also allowed to criticise right back. It's the latter part you got a problem with, huh? So it's actually more like "any Men's Rights Advocate, no matter how misogynistic and troglodytic".

Also, energiewende has still not given any actual example himself, despite my clear request. Fucking coward. This thread was indeed intended to go into a whine about political correctness, just as I suspected, right?

[Vaporous]

If you are involved with US politics, Israel.

Breast Cancer charities, big no-no.

Any advocate for women's rights/equality no matter how batshit nuts they are.

The important part of the quote is the meaning of "allowed". As in, when Voltaire wrote that, there were horrible legal and extra-legal penalties for criticizing the church , because it was not allowed by law. Whereas if you criticize any of the things you listed, people who disagree with you will call you an asshole and then you don't get tortured or sent to prison indefinitely. By the standards of all human history you are "allowed" to criticize anyone.

Like so:

Regarding Jean-Francois Lefebvre, chevalier de La Barre, we declare him convicted of having taught to sing and sung impious, execrable and blasphemous songs against God; of having profaned the sign of the cross in making blessings accompanied by foul words which modesty does not permit repeating; of having knowingly refused the signs of respect to the Holy Sacrament carried in procession by the priory of Saint-Pierre; of having shown these signs of adoration to foul and abominable books that he had in his room; of having profaned the mystery of the consecration of wine, having mocked it, in pronouncing the impure terms mentioned in the trial record over a glass of wine which he held in his hand and then drunken the wine; of having finally proposed to Petignat, who was serving mass with him, to bless the cruets while pronouncing the impure words mentioned in the trial record.

In reparation of which, we condemn him to make honorable amend, in smock, head bare and a rope around his neck, holding in his hands a burning candle of two pounds before the principal door of the royal church... of Saint-Wulfram, where he will be taken in a tumbrel by the executioner who will attach before and behind him a sign on which will be written, in large letters, "impious one"; and there, being on his knees, will confess his crimes...; this done, will have the tongue cut out and will then be taken in the said tumbrel to the public marketplace of this city to have his head cut off on a scaffold; his body and his head will then be thrown on a pyre to be destroyed, burnt, reduced to ashes and these thrown to the wind. We order that before the execution of the said Lefebvre de La Barre the ordinary and the extraordinary question [that is, torture] will be applied to have from his mouth the truth of several facts of the trial and revelation about his accomplices... We order that the Philosophical Dictionary [of Voltaire]... be thrown by the executioner on the same pyre as the body of the said Lefebvre de La Barre.

[Eleas]

Among my associates there's a common quip that loosely translates to, "but you're not allowed to say that in this fucking country". We use it jokingly, generally with simulated outrage, as a dog-whistle for any kind of reactionary thinking because a) racists, misogynists and the privileged so often tend to use it unironically, and b) because it perfectly encapsulates a world-view in which dissent automatically implies an assault on the proper order of things.

As Vaporous alludes to, to accept this premise we must first specify what "allowed" means. The word itself implies rules enforced by some kind of threat of punishment, but what are the rules and what's the punishment like?

Well, in the case of authoritarians that spout such nonsense, the rules are socially emergent and the aforementioned punishment generally the horror of learning that other people disagree with them. Just like a bully who, comfortable with slapping around others, suddenly gets hit back, the authoritarian perceives this as an attack on his entire world... which of course it is, since a world that unfair deserves attack.

[LaCroix]

Also, said bullies are suddenly realizing that almost everyone disagrees with them, which enforces the "I am not allowed to speak my mind" impression.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Any advocate for women's rights/equality no matter how batshit nuts they are.

What opinions would qualiy as batshit nuts?

[Andrew_Fireborn]

Any advocate for women's rights/equality no matter how batshit nuts they are.

What opinions would qualiy as batshit nuts?

Rebecca Watson, aka Skepchick, for the unaware was the motivating force behind "Elevatorgate." An incident in which she was asked by a male convention attendee to join him in his room for coffee. She declined, and then the next day launched into a tirade about how she felt threatened because this exchange took place in an elevator.

PZ Myers has become increasingly erratic, banning people from Free Thought Blogs for disagreeing with feminist members of said blog circle. He's also recently called a fellow professor a rapist because he was topping off a woman's wine glass at a party.

And, quite frankly, Metahive's immediate dismissive "Oh, you must be frothing MRA" to any acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe modern feminism is going in the wrong direction, rather proves the point.

Things like that are causing me to be increasingly disgusted with the left. They prance about proclaiming that they're the champions of equality and open discussion, and then immediately dismiss opposing viewpoints and brand their opposition sub-human.

[Metahive]

All Rebecca Watson did was say "Guys, don't do that", there was no tirade. What followed was a regular shitstorm of death and rape threats by butthurt male troglodytes. Yeah, already tells me how reliable you are when it comes assessing the situation.

PZ Myers has become increasingly erratic, banning people from Free Thought Blogs for disagreeing with feminist members of said blog circle. He's also recently called a fellow professor a rapist because he was topping off a woman's wine glass at a party.

He didn't, several anonymous females who have been his victims did and Shermer, the guy in question, already has a reputation for being a misogynistic sleazebag who thinks that women are too stupid to be skeptics so the claims are believable.

And before you whine about them staying anonymous, I refer to what happened to Rebecca Watson above. You know, not everyone wants to paint a target on himself for vile abuse.

And, quite frankly, Metahive's immediate dismissive "Oh, you must be frothing MRA" to any acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe modern feminism is going in the wrong direction, rather proves the point.

Nope.

Things like that are causing me to be increasingly disgusted with the left. They prance about proclaiming that they're the champions of equality and open discussion, and then immediately dismiss opposing viewpoints and brand their opposition sub-human.

I have read the contributions that MRAs left at Pharyngula over the topics above. All I've seen was JAQing off, obtuseness, misogyny and general assholery. Banning was to good for them.

[HMS Sophia]

While I'm not agreeing with Andrew_Fireborn, I do find myself having to point out Bug Brennan and her curious propensity for nuclear grade transphobic insanity.
I'm not arguing modern feminism is going in the wrong direction. But 'Radical Feminists' are... odd. Same thing leads to talk of 'womyn-born-womyn'.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Rebecca Watson, aka Skepchick, for the unaware was the motivating force behind "Elevatorgate." An incident in which she was asked by a male convention attendee to join him in his room for coffee. She declined, and then the next day launched into a tirade about how she felt threatened because this exchange took place in an elevator.

The fact that you strawman it like this indicates either you learnt about it from a biased source and didn't go any further or else yes indeed you are part of the problem.

Have you even tried to understand why many women can feel threatened when men proposition them in a confined area with no escape and no witnesses, or have you tried and scoff at it because, well, it doesn't matter to your perspective so anyone to whom it matters is "batshit insane".

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Also, if you really think feminism is not "allowed" to be criticised, you've never tried to actually be a feminist and try to talk about the issue in public.

Unless what you meant is "I'm not allowed to criticise this movement fighting against institutionalised bigotry without risking being called out on bigotry", but when it's worded that way I should hope it makes you think?

[Purple]

Have you even tried to understand why many women can feel threatened when men proposition them in a confined area with no escape and no witnesses, or have you tried and scoff at it because, well, it doesn't matter to your perspective so anyone to whom it matters is "batshit insane".

Alright. I will bite instead of him.

I think that you are misinterpreting the general viewpoint. Now maybe not his viewpoint. I can't say for sure that he is in fact not just crazy. But most people aren't. And there is a viewpoint here that I think I can present that should be familiar to any man here.

The viewpoint is not what she would be afraid off but why she would be afraid of it. That is to say that as a male and at the same time a generally almost decent person (if I do say so my self) I honestly do not think that a sufficient part of the male population consists out of evil elevator rapists to warrant such fears. Yes, these things happen. And yes, they are horrible. But to genuinely fear someones advance, especially what if I understand correctly was an invitation for a coffee that would take place outside based on nothing but notion that you are alone with him in the elevator and no one can see it if he goes insanely evil at you all of a sudden is worrying. It means that this person genuinely believes most men are potential insane elevator rapists.

Now I am not familiar with the case in question. So I can not tell if this was the case. It might all be just him presenting a very biased story. But if it is true. I have a question. Have you even tried to understand why many men will find it uncomfortable to find out that a major political activist feels that way? And even if it is not. Have you even tried to understand why many men will find it uncomfortable to hear such stories that sound just believable enough?