hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
Most other countries can make deals with one another to the effect of: 'I won't if you won't'. But to establish such a deal you need mutual respect. Kind of hard to argue in favor of that wrt Iran when the current Iranian government was born out of a revolution against a puppet government that was installed precisely to allow certain foreign entities to not deal with Iran as equals.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
Is it common to have anti discrimination laws based around something as vague and unclear as "political beliefs"? I wouldn't have said it was.
If I'm understanding you correctly, Yes. Laws around vague and unclear things such political, religious and even deeply held philosophical beliefs are legislated around all over the world across a wide range of different models. Along with a host of other vague things.
"John's gay son should be hanged" vs "Gays should be hanged by the government" doesn't seem that meaningful of a difference to me.
Then we disagree. I think it's inarguable that there is not just meaningful but a clear logical distinction between the two. The most obvious one being direct personal animus.
The employer is not some sort of dictator who is unable to be left. There's tons of jobs that someone can go do, both in their field and out of it. You have the same right of association and can leave your job for the reasons you want, like "my boss has an annoying voice" or "the company had a trans pride picnic and I don't like that".
You are equating the rights of the employer and the employees. I don't agree with that equivocation due to the difference in power and circumstance. Quitting your only job is not the same as firing employee number 85. Why an employer needs the ability to fire an otherwise good employee because they don't like their stated political opinions is just bonkers to me. As if the psychological angst over political differences can be equated to a person now being out of a job.
Civil right laws are largely meaningless, they only get passed when a society (and thus almost always the market of a society) are already in agreement with the general principles. Enshrining them has some effect don't get me wrong, but it's not as potent as it seems.
Civil Rights Laws were very contentious when introduced. They are also very potent and have completely revolutionized the American Constitution. But I think we are getting a little far afield here. I'm not sure what the relevance of markets and discrimination laws is to this discussion.
To that extent, an optimized market is just as well a market that provides job security and stability that reinforces segregation and whatever else. Depends on where you are coming from!
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
I'm not sure we need to solve all of the worlds ills to derive some benefit from OS ID verification. I'd wager it would be easier to account for who exactly the 12 year olds are messaging if every person involved had a verifiable ID. It would at least raise the barrier of entry for pedophiles from being able to make an account on Discord to being able to create an entirely fake identity.
Comically, having such oversight for online messages sounds so oppressive it might even drive the kids to spend more time with each other in person, just for privacies sake.
Where I live there's a government ID system you can choose to link up to your phone. It provides access to a lot of basic government services without the need to visit an office. Sure, you have to prove your identity one time. But after that it's fine for years. Your bank can interface with this system to prove your identity and now you have access to a host of banking services. This is a very clear and direct quality of life improvement that could not be possible without some database somewhere that can interface with your phone knowing exactly who you are.
ID theft is hardly a relevant problem here. Because it's a known quantity, there are safeguards and insurances in place to ensure that you can't lose too much if you fall victim to it. It's not much different from the risk of losing a credit card for that matter.
Gambling ads and suggestive content are visible even on kids' sites designed to block it. The blocks don't work
Service providers have plausible deniability since you can't prove or verify a users age beyond just asking the user like they do now. However, if you could prove age, you could start holding service providers that don't adequately respect that age accountable. OS ID Age verification provides the mechanism for that change. I'm not saying things will become perfect, but perfect need not be the enemy of the first steps on a long road to improvement.
Just to add, the government may leak things and pay pittance in return, but that's still better than having your info leaked and nothing happening to those who leaked it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
How are you going to draw the lines in a fair manner, where does "politics" a topic about basically every part of life in at least some way actually begin here?
On a case by case basis. Like is done all over the world. I'm sure your entertainingly convoluted examples would make it all the way to the highest court of any land. That being said, I don't think they are very realistic. And you can make a mockery of any law with unrealistic examples. But those examples could still be dealt with, even if they are far from being representative.
I would personally make a distinction between political views and assertions made about private individuals in public. Similarly, political views directed against private individuals could easily be deemed to not be in line with the political process. As in, making politically unrealistic wishes of ill towards private persons is a clear enough step over the line. Similar to how saying 'In minecraft' is not actually a legal defense against the preceding threats of violence, saying 'politically' is also not a defense.
If boss' wife was not private, but a public political figure, then assertions against her would be political. But not in the context of her being your boss' wife, since that fact is not politically relevant. If it were politically relevant, and both the boss and wife are politically involved then an employee would have the right to make political statements about both.
All that being said, I'd generally side with employees over employers in any case where the working relationship between the two is not personal. The idea that an employer gets to dictate the public expressions of tens, hundreds or thousands of people goes against fundamental aspects of democracy as I see them.
This is some crazy logic, boycotting companies is your right. The government should not be micromanaging your financial decisions like that. Do you want every time you use a different gas station or try a new brand at the store to be open to scrutiny by bureaucrats to make sure you aren't "cancelling" anyone?
The point being illustrated by me was that people with actual employment protection rights, like blacks in America, don't have to boycott things, since their rights are upheld by third parties. If your rights are not upheld by third parties then you don't really have rights. Unless you want to contextualize any ability you have to do anything in the world as a 'right', in which case our understanding of the word is not 1:1.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
When someone is making a 'this is how I think things should be' argument, it's very annoying to receive a 'well this is how things actually are' response. We're not really playing from the same sheet of music here.
You see how you just went "No one is doing that, anyway I'm going to do that" right? I don't see why your boss shouldn't be able to fire you for that.
I don't see how I did that unless you are arguing that there is not a difference between hurling personal insults at your boss and publicly voicing a political opinion he disagrees with. I see that distinction clearly, and I also think that expressing political opinions and handling political disagreements is a basic and necessary function of living in a democracy. If you don't see the inherent conflict of serving your democratic duty as an active participant in the political process and being liable to lose your job because of that then I feel we are at an impasse.
Outside of that I feel like we are roaming back to my original point. And I would just directly challenge your conception of 'having rights' in America as you present them here. For example, you can't fire a person because they are black. The Civil Rights Act just doesn't allow that. So you don't really have at will employment by default so we don't even need to act like 'At will Employment' is a point here to begin with.
And that highlights my problem with this predicament. Boycotting a company because they fired an honest and good man for bad reasons is what losers with no rights do. People with actual rights just point the upholder of their rights to the person that violated them and the upholder deals with it.
If you have to uphold your own rights in the immediate sense then you just don't have rights. Like, insofar as rights are real, you have to have an external mechanism that enforces them. Otherwise you are just kind of doing what you want and calling it 'having rights'.
My example pertained more to America. If you sign up for or log in to a website you are functionally trackable, as far as I understood things. So yeah, being hidden is possible, but being hidden and being someone that matters in discourse? I think the barrier to entry on that is a bit too high to be considered relevant.
That's never going to die because "consequences" is vague and in many ways includes other people speech.
This feels like a very clear motte and bailey.
No one employing the 'freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences' line is defending peoples rights to disassociate over someone being an asshole in private dealings. Instead they are defending exactly the things described here:
Yes there are some "consequences" that are obviously BS. Violence, shouting over people, abuse of government.
Yes, calling the bosses wife fat to his face might get your fired. Voicing support for party X whilst your boss hates party X might also get you fired, but these are clearly not the same thing. You have to see the distinction between them. At risk of sounding like a complete cardboard box: we live in a democracy! Making political statements in a democracy has to be protected. People can play their cards close to their hands in private, but limiting discourse on the public square via fear of reprisals is not a way for a democracy to function. There has to be a way to navigate that.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
If we gas ourselves up on hopeium, in theory this could be a positive step in the right direction.
Internet anonymity is already a mixed bag. If you are anonymous but make enough impact there are plenty of avenues for those who want to out you to do so. Just recently Howling Mutant got doxed. He joins a long list of 'doxxed' folks who have had their lives upended in worse ways.
You are not anonymous because people can't find you. You are anonymous because you don't matter. Those who matter get doxxed and the veil of anonymity now harms them, since they are now alone and exposed whilst everyone else is allowed to hide. If there was no anonymity people would take their rights to express themselves more seriously. And then maybe one day the 'freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences' line could die the painful death it deserves.
Outside of that there's plenty of potential utility in ID verification over the internet. Be that to do business with the bank or government offices that would have required you to go there in person, but can now be solved with a few swipes or clicks. I would in fact be quite partial to the idea that certain demographics would never see a gambling ad ever again. Which would otherwise be hard to achieve. On the flipside I'm not really sold on the utility of a low barrier of entry for kids to see porn or fall victim to psychologically manipulative 'gaming' schemes.
To put it another way: If what kids see on the internet matters so much that parents should revoke access to it, why isn't what's on there a bigger deal? We've already seen fine posts on here regarding the subject of foreign interference in media with the recent forced sale of TikTok. That, on top of the promulgation of hard and soft pornography, should be dealt with head on rather than being excused away under the guise that this is all somehow a meaningful avenue of anonymous expression whilst your ability to express your political views is a total sink or swim predicament based entirely on the whims of billionaires and the political extremists they bankroll, who can revoke your ability to meaningfully express yourself at will.
If we are to elevate the internet to be a free market place of ideas then it should be that in totality. Not piecemeal where sometimes our rights are sacred but other times not.
Theoretically your identity could be veiled to the public on certain platforms in a formalized manner, and unneeded breaches of information could be prosecuted similar to a libel suit. The big companies could now properly curate content based on a very firm 'don't show porn to under 18's' criteria. Meaning the government has a foot in the door of their algorithms. Maybe we could finally stop pretending that technology is all too complicated to legislate. And maybe, just maybe, this will lead to my YouTube frontpage sucking less. Maybe.
Now, what are the odds that OS ID verification leads to any of this? None. But the mechanisms would at least theoretically be in place to make the change. As it stands the situation isn't all that great. And I'd wager this would mostly affect phones anyway, which already have pretty ironclad ways of knowing exactly who you are, where you are and so on.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
The most damaging and pervasive American exports are its media and academia. Leftism is the king of memes.
That's definitely the case in person. But I'd wager that a non-negligible percentage of the divide between men and women is driven by inert factors like filters on dating apps and similar. It's much easier to be virtuous in solitude in front of a computer and meticulously set things up to filter out the heretics before 'biology' has gotten a chance to weigh in.
That's not to say there's a lack of reasons to be against the womanosphere or the modern gynocentric hysterics matrix in general. Women's ingroup bias is cranked to the max all the time and that necessarily has negative consequences for everyone.
In tangentially related gender war news, Iraqveteran8888 got divorce raped.
For those who don't know he was one of the bigger gun enthusiast YouTube channels back in the day.
He's taking it in stride. Dropping a banger Top 5 Guns to Keep After Divorce. And a If Guns Were Women video. Giving us a hint of where his head is at.
Not knowing the circumstance around the divorce, it's hard to tell how much sympathy one should dole out, but regardless of that its always hard for me to wrap my head around how men still manage to end up homeless and without any material possessions after a divorce.
The contrast of seeing an old school gender war story and the ongoing disaster of UK modernity is... bleak. None of the old problems were resolved, we just added new ones to make things even worse.
But it's not as if the gender warriors of yesteryear had any solutions. In fact, their prescriptions for young men were to not get married at all. That's not good for the constantly declining marriage or TFR. I remember the prevailing MGTOW divide between going full hermit or not largely revolved around the ugly truth that women would just replace you with sub-par foreigners. Weird to see how that played out in reality.
hanikrummihundursvin
5d ago
Yes, reminds me of a similar dynamic with Amy Coney Barrett and feminists. At the same time that she's an evil Catholic handmaiden of the patriarchy, she's also the living breathing feminist dream of the girl that can have it all in a mans world.
I think you're more right than wrong. My normie coworkers point out the absurdities of the unfairness in our immediate environment all the time. But there's never seethe or resentment. Just passive acceptance of the fact that things are this way and there's no avenue to do anything about it short of home visits with a shotgun. Anything else is just signaling low status. 'Someone has to do something about this!' is the kind of cringe that gets emotionally unregulated teenagers hooked on 'KONY 2012'. It's too juvenile in its earnestness and sincerity for adults to buy into.
Same goes for black on white crime or the ethnic cleansing of white South Africans. No one normal wants to wallow in that crap, or even hear about it. You need a bit of 'autism', for a lack of a better term, to get past that hump of emotional negativity and look at things in a larger systemic context. And it's in that larger systemic context that the real resentment starts building, as ones understanding of scale and scope of the crimes and the consequences become larger and larger.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
Unless my memory fails me Russel Brand was positioned as a sort of 'safe edge' left leaning progressive at the time. Doing 'two sides of the same coin' 'it's the elites' type of stuff in the spirit of Occupy Wall Street. He wasn't outside the Overton Window at that point.
But Katy Perry is a weird character to say the least. I'm not sure if she's earnest and kind of autistic, giving off those Brie Larsson vibes, or a high ranking member in some elite satanic sex cult. In either case she somehow managed to get herself into space, so good on her.
My maximal cynicism pocket theory is that Trudeau is dating her to get his sons foot in the door of the music industry.
"When I’m really happy with a song I send it to her," Xavier revealed of his connection with the mom-of-one. "She’s always happy to give me advice or tell me what I should change."
Connected like no other. It's the worst kind of mumble rap but the comments are worth a skim:
dude flexing OUR money
Just gives it extra flair, honestly. Along with the fact that Katy Perry is forcibly subjected to it.
The Trudeau Rorschach Test
The Canadian golden boy seems to be in contention for the run of the century. Moving from politics to dating pop stars and going to concerts like the youth never left him. Reactions are mixed. Some say it's a cute romance between two adorable public figures, Trudeau and Katy Perry, whilst others believe they should both go to hell.
I can't comment much on celebrity gossip culture that lives for these type of crossovers, but what is striking about the scathing criticism that follows Trudeau around dissident right circles is how hollow it sounds.
Canadians can feel rage through their veins seeing this.
Whilst Trudeau keeps smiling, living his best life.
Why does this 53-year-old man look and act like he's 24?
When you have freshly harvested baby adrenochrome running through your veins, what else can you do?
Truly happily together people don’t put their relationship all of our social media all the time
I have a hard time imagining anything that would make two sociopaths happier.
Most Millennials remember those years in college where you had a meal plan, an easy course load, and his naive euphoric perspective on the world where you just had to show up, not be an asshole, “do the heck in’ smart thing” and all the wonders of the world would just be delivered to you.
Of course, most of us left this Potemkin village and joined the real world with taxes and reduced expectations and genuine hardships.
However, if you were a certain kind of progressive Golden Boy, your entire life just existed in this bubble, and you are totally unaware that anyone lives differently
Yeah, our suffering and toil makes us real, whilst luxury and enjoyment make him fake. God I wish I was fake.
I'm the opposite of a fan of Trudeau, but all of this rings empty. Pure cope and seethe.
Maybe it's hard to contextualize this outgoing life enjoying man who seemingly can't stop winning, next to the consequence of his political advocacy. Be that the environmental humbug like carbon taxation, the drowning of Canada through mass immigration, cannabis legalization or the instances where the mask slipped off and our progressive Golden Boy let out for just a second that he is just as conniving and corrupt a politician as anyone else. Solidifying the accusation that his performative progressivism was always just that, and that love and kindness are not for the outgroup that protests COVID restrictions. Though the hardest ones to get over are the instances of MAiD overreach. Where mostly white Canadians who are down on their luck are offered suicide as a way out of their homelessness, PTSD or depression.
With all of these disastrous policies put together it's understandably hard to look at pictures of this apparently happy go lucky 54 year old father of 3 living his best life without expressing ones ire. But there is something fundamentally debasing and ugly about wallowing in your impotence like that.
Trudeau is not going to stop loving life just because he made you hate yours. You are going to have to make him hate his life yourself, if that's what you really feel when you look at the test, or figure out a way to make yours better by doing something other than looking for glee through another mans misery.
Yeah, it's worth remembering what it felt like being inside the Trump bubble, for those who seem to have fallen out.
On a side note, to the extent that people have been falling out, I'm not sure that will matter much. Post-Trump GOP will be an interesting thing to see. And hopefully not completely disappointing, though that is probably a safe bet.
hanikrummihundursvin
7d ago
Israel is functionally targeting civilians in Lebanon and Palestine. Along with directly targeting civilians when they deem them important enough to kill.
I'm pretty sure I missed nothing. Rather, I asked you a very simple yes or no question, and you evaded it with whataboutism.
How two combatants interact with one another is not whataboutism. If group A attacks civilians and group B also attacks civilians then claiming that group B is bad because it attacks civilians whilst neglecting to mention or flat out denying that group A also does that is wrong.
By the actions of Israel bombing Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, Hezbollah bombing Israeli civilians is par for the course. I don't like it, but those are the rules of engagement between the two. Especially considering how many civilians Israel has killed compared to Hezbollah.
To that end, whilst I don't like the attack, it's definitionally controlled and measured in context with Israel dropping bombs on residential areas.
(3) You evaded the question, instead trying to change the topic to a discussion of Israel's supposed bad deeds.
I should have called this out right away, but 'Deny Guys' like you are not worth conversing with. Couching everything in 'Do you deny?! is just a rhetorical vehicle to drive any honest engagement you get towards a dumb point like this.
As an example:
'Do you deny being a liar?'
Well, yes, I'm not a liar, you would say.
'So you've never told a lie?'
Well, I definitely have, but I wouldn't consider myself a liar...
'Hah! so not only are you a liar, you were lying just now when you said you weren't a liar! Proving that you were and are a liar!'
I can't say I lament being blocked by one.
hanikrummihundursvin
7d ago
Here is the paragraph of the post you replied to when you asked me about Hezbollah and Iran:
Listen, I'm not on trial here 'denying' things and you're not an authority on facts and knowledge. I'm sure Iran funds them along with a host of other groups. Why is funding proxies invalid when Iran does it, but not America or Israel?
So you're just not saying the correct thing here when falsely accusing me of lying.
Iran funds Hezbollah, even directs them when they need something done. They probably have more than a few Iranian soldiers in there was well. My entire argumentation assumed this was the case so I'm surprised.
But regardless of that, I repeatedly asked for clarification on this. If you felt that something relevant was lost in translation you could have clarified it. But you did not do that.
(1) Iran does in fact export terrorism; and (2) the United States and Israel do not.
The US and Israel have exported terrorism continuously in the middle east. Israel does it directly via their own military actions against civilians, along with the US. But they have also funded armed forces on the ground directly. Most recently by hoping to arm Kurds to do the fighting for them in Iran. But most notably through funding Wahhabist ideology. Which is directly tied to some of the worst terror attacks outside the middle east.
What's far more likely is that Iran does not bully the US as it does with Israel because (1) America is much further away; (2) America does not have the same kind of hostile population on its borders which can be organized and recruited like Hezbollah; and (3) America is by far the world's most powerful country and bullies tend to choose weaker targets.
I'm sure that factors in a lot. How this supposedly demonstrates that my point that 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to America' don't mean the same thing to Iran eludes me.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
Here's what you said before. This is a direct quote from you:
That's not a direct quote from me. You cut it to pieces and out of context, again!
Before I engage with you quoting me again I want you to clarify this. You quoted me and said it looked like I was denying that Iran funds Hezbollah. But in that quote, you cut off the next part of the sentence that said that I was sure that they were funding Hezbollah.
How can it "seem" like I'm denying Iran funds Hezbollah when I say I am sure they fund Hezbollah and other groups in the same two sentence paragraph? I asked for clarification and you seem to have missed it. Are you misquoting me on purpose or was that an error?
I'm not sure what you mean by "proxy argumentation."
By proxy argumentation I mean that we are talking about what Iran means by 'Death to America' yet you only give examples to what Iran is doing relating to Israel.
Are you saying that when Iran's leaders chant "Death to X," the meaning is different depending on whether "X" refers to Israel or the United States? Because if so, that defies all logic and common sense.
That's obviously the case, demonstrated by the difference in how Iran acts towards America and Iran.
I'm not sure I understand this either. Israel has launched essentially zero direct attacks against regular Iranian civilians. Iran has (through proxies) launched numerous repeated attacks over the years.
That should really help you understand it. Iran proxies, whilst doing work with Iran, are not Iran. Hezbollah exists as an organization deeply involved with Lebanon and Palestine. Both of those countries have had civilians bombed by Israel. Hezbollah retaliations against Israel relate to those conflicts. Or are you denying that Israel has killed Palestinian and Lebanese civilians?(this is a joke, based on how obtuse and annoying your way of conversing is)
In your view, when Iran's leadership chants "Death to America," they mean something very different as to America than what they mean (as to Israel) when they chant "Death to Israel"? Is that seriously your position?
That's obviously Iran's position.
Either Iranian action is a barometer by which one can judge Iranian intentions or it is not. You said it was. Well, they don't treat Israel and American action the same. There you have it. But besides that, there's nothing illogical about wishing two of your enemies differing outcomes in defeat.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
It reads like I said it was about as measured and controlled as Israeli actions. Maybe you missed that part of my reply? Here, let me highlight it for you:
It was a revenge attack for deaths caused by Israel in Lebanon and Palestine. It was about as measured and controlled as Israeli attacks often are.
Here you go. I'd rank that attack as being pretty bad as a representative of how Iran handles things with regards to America. Given that this was a retaliation against Israel. A better example for how they deal with America would be their response to Operation Midnight Hammer. Where they gave advanced warning. Demonstrating capability, rather than signaling intent or want for war.
But as a response to Israel, as I've told you numerous times already, that conflict is very messy. Israel has already dictated the rules of engagement and Iran plays by those rules when defending itself and its interests. Conflating Iran's dealings with America and Israel is not valid, and you should stop trying.
Hopefully that clarifies my position on the topic for you. I'd implore you to read more than one sentence at a time. It gives a better overall picture and minimizes confusion on your half, and the need to reiterate everything on mine.
That creation of a lot of rubble does not necessarily mean that the rubble-creator has a "complete disregard for human life."
Then what is your issue with Iran retaliations against Israel? Please try to form a coherent standard that can apply to both Israel and Iran. I can accept a standard that says both parties have been reckless and bad, or that they are both playing by the same ruleset.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
We are already talking about this topic in a different thread where I have answered some of these questions. Why are you asking them again?
Let's talk, for example, about Iran's proxy attack against Madjal Shams in July of 2024 which killed 12 children on a soccer field.
A missile hit a playground full of children by accident.
Are you saying that this was a "measured and controlled" retaliation by Iran for purposes of self-defense?
No.
Are you saying that that this attack was just an accident and Iran had some other target in mind? If so, what was the target?
Yes. The target would have been an Israeli military installation, a few kilometers from the football field, per wikipedia and reports of similar attacks directed against local Israeli military installations during the same time period.
Or how about the 1994 attack on a Jewish Community Center in Argentina. Do you maintain that this was "measured and controlled" retaliation by Iran for purposes of self-defense? Or do you simply deny that Iran was responsible for this attack?
It was a revenge attack for deaths caused by Israel in Lebanon and Palestine. It was about as measured and controlled as Israeli attacks often are. There are also theories that the attacks relate to broader geopolitical disruptions between Argentina, Syria and Iran, but I'm not particularly tuned in to that area of expertise.
I would have to disagree with this. Self-defense sometimes results in rubble, particularly if the aggressor hides in hospitals, mosques, and schools.
Then what is your contention? Self defense sometimes results in rubble. You think civilians can be valid targets if deemed important for the regime, like Iranian scientists. So what is your issue with these events? You have no point here unless you are saying Hezbollah and Israel are engaging in similar acts, in which case we can look at the scale and see Israel is acting out in wildly disproportionate ways.
However, if we look at how Iran engages with American aggression, the dynamic changes. But you never do that and only focus on Israel. So eh... Maybe we will get there eventually.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
I don't care much for proxy argumentation. Are you Israeli or jewish? Or otherwise care a lot about Israel? Because you don't mention America much in this post, but instead talk a lot about Israel. And to the extent that we were talking about 'Death to America' we are straying away from the topic. I only say this since you seem comfortable with this sort of 'hidden motive' argumentation.
Unless you want to get back on topic I'll consider the 'death to America' part of this discussion over. Iran has a very clean track record of dealing with America. Their responses have been predictable and measured. The wildest portion of their foreign policy was the Lebanon hostage crisis, but that predictably ended with the Iraq-Iran war. You have presented no evidence of Iran being irrational, overly aggressive or otherwise hostile without provocation in their dealings with America that would in any way lead one to believe that they want death to American citizens, rather than seeking the end of the American regime that is hostile to them and has caused untold suffering for millions in the region.
I'm not sure about Iranians in general, but Iranian leadership has consistently, chronically, and aggressively attacked Israeli civilians over the years. They've demonstrated what they mean by "Death to Israel."
They haven't by any relative margin. The Israel Palestine conflict is a rather messy affair, where the Israelis have killed more Palestinian civilians by a wide margin. My rough count is around 2k Israelis dead to 60k Palestinians. How that translates to an overly aggressive Iran defies all reason.
It depends what you mean by "civilians." Israel has specifically targeted Iranian nuclear scientists who were reasonably believed to be part of Iran's nuclear program but who were not actually members of the Iranian military.
By civilians I mean civilians, like the thousands of people Israel has killed in recent years. If Israel says it's not targeting civilians, but is at the same time leveling entire neighborhoods and killing a lot of them then I simply don't believe they have any relevant defense to offer when a suicide bomber blows themselves up in public somewhere in Israel. The rules of engagement are very clearly to pick targets of opportunity. To the Israelis that's leveling a hospital or an apartment complex to kill a single scientist. To Hezbollah it's a hotel where coalition forces hang out.
That being said, it doesn't really matter. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Israel has been pursuing a "Death to Gaza" policy and, as you claim "they [Iran's leadership] wish for the same thing to happen to Israel as has happened to Gaza." That's a very reasonable basis to believe that there is a great deal of risk from Iran possessing nuclear weapons.
Did Israel nuke Gaza? No. So this great deal of risk obviously goes both ways. And since Israel has nukes, what should Iran do, given Israel has demonstrated by action just how dangerous they are. (I mean, note the difference, you are trying to infer through words the hostile motive of Israel when Israel has already done it in action.)
I'm not sure what your point is here. You seem to be denying that Iran exports terrorism.
This is such a... Let's look at the sentence you quote: "Listen, I'm not on trial here 'denying' things and you're not an authority on facts and knowledge. I'm sure Iran funds them along with a host of other groups."
How can it seem like I'm denying Iran funds Hezbollah when when I say I am sure they fund Hezbollah and other groups?
My point there otherwise was that the way you wrote was arrogant and annoying.
The bottom line is that Iran's leadership has shown through their actions what its long-standing "Death to Israel" policy means in practice and it's reasonable to infer that Iran's leadership means basically the same thing with its "Death to America" policy.
When we look at how Iran deals with America we can see that this is not a reasonable comparison. There was never a reason to assume that Israel and America were considered the same in any regard to begin with.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
Simply not true.
Iran has shown through actions that it retaliates in measured and controlled ways to defend itself. Israel has demonstrated a complete disregard for human life time and time again. Which is demonstrable by Gaza looking like rubble.
I'm not really in the market for a bridge, but if you can sell me an alternative explanation for what Iranians truly mean and feel that doesn't rely on blank otherization of them being blood thirsty animals with no rationality or reason, I'm all ears.
This feels like we are just erecting an impossible standard for being described as a neurotypical person that also dislikes Israel. I.e, we want to label everyone who does not like Israel with a verbal guillotine called 'antisemitism'. Which is conveniently defined by us as an ever evolving collection of psychosocial irrational delusions. Sucks to be one of those, I guess.
The article’s most grating implicit premise is that dissent is only permitted if one first secures a survival plan for Israeli ethnocentrism. This is irksome not just because Israel is not holding itself to such a standard with its own actions against the Palestinians, but also because it relies on the lack of such a standard existing in the western world. Where Israel holds seemingly no reservations about sending any and all refugees their continued ethnocentric existence might cause. It's a catch 22 for the argument.
If the author thinks they are hoisting leftists by their own petard by employing this rhetoric, let me introduce you to the rich history of jewish intellectuals that spent their lives dismantling even the notion that ingroup bias, nations, or biology itself should exist in any relevant way in the western mind when we think of ourselves or our identities!
To the articles assertions more directly: Diaspora jews are probably the most self aware and protected group in the world. They are funded by tax payers like no other. Their representation in media is rivaled by none and the attention they receive from world leaders borders on absurdity. The notion that the multiculti death worlds that diaspora intellectual jews have helped create in the west are not safe for jews because of the imported muslims that Zionist policies necessitated and many diaspora jews aided in the import of is, on top of the audacious hypocrisy, not rational.
Jews are not going more extinct in the west than any other western group. On that simple fact the debate is over. Jews are not put upon, jews are not oppressed. They are just... suffering from a collection of irrational psychosocial delusions. Call it 'authoritarian-ingroup-hysteria'. They are afflicted with the odd and outdated notion of ingroup bias towards their own kind. That ones ingroups continued existence as a coherent sovereign entity is somehow valuable or relevant. Or that attacks against the ingroup are personally relevant. The western world has long dissolved any notion pertaining to such ideation. Nowhere is the continued existence of Europeans demanded. Least of all by leftists or jews! We deserved 9/11! Diversity is our strength! Our genes will survive no matter our phenotypic expression! Beige Power!
...I could go on and on. Thank you for linking the article, it was traumatizing.
More options
Context Copy link