hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
1d 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
2d 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
3d 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
4d 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
4d 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
5d 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
5d 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
5d 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
5d 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
5d 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.
hanikrummihundursvin
5d ago
When people bring up 'Iran chants death to America, therefor they are a threat' they are making a much more visceral and stupid argument than 'we have rational but unresolved geopolitical issues.'
The fundamental premise being that Iranians are insane in some way and therefor giving them a nuke will lead to them nuking America.
It's otherizing and hysteric and such statements in any other context leveraged against any other group would warrant supporting argumentation. So far that has been lacking.
hanikrummihundursvin
5d ago
You are not a crowd of angry folks who just had their friends and relatives blown to bits by an American freedom dispenser.
In America post 9/11, verbiage in the line of 'just glass the place' was brought up quite a bit by disgruntled Americans. If that had become a slogan of sorts I'm confident people would understand the difference between emotional expression of the public and official statements.
What if I said that Shakes needs a 'regime change'?
It's not as direct, but rhetoric like that has been recognized for what it is. Like when online games started banning people who asked others to 'Please seek Canadian healthcare'.
Sounds like a classic motte and bailey pivot to me.
By who? The Iranian leadership? Are we supposing that they go in public, make a definitive statement of what 'Death to America' means, and every Iranian citizen knows to not take that statement seriously, and instead chant what they really mean. Which is to wish death on every American man woman and child, because Iranians are just subhuman and beastial like that and revel in suffering and death?
- Sure.
- Yes.
- The conflict between Israel and the muslim world has been rather vicious. I'd wager they wish for the same thing to happen to Israel as has happened to Gaza. And I'm sure they have elements similar to Israel, that gloat and cheer when civilians are being bombed. Insofar as there is a difference between the chants, I think they want Israel to stop existing as a country, and for the jews to be somewhere else.
- Is there a regime in this conflict that hasn't attacked civilians? Why would Tel Aviv looking like Gaza not be fair play? Not that the Iranians have done anything remotely close to that.
- I don't know how they think it is interpreted or if that even enters their minds.
But the again, why would I bother quote, answer or link anything? None of the anti-Iran hysteria does so. Post after post. Kind of crazy.
In fact nigh all of those posts are just a routine list of arbitrary accusations and arbitrary benchmarks. Why would Iran funding Hezbollah be a reason to not like Iran? Funding proxies that can be called terrorists is practically an American geopolitical hobby. Is it OK to cause suffering, chaos and death to achieve your political goals so long as you are not called Hezbollah?
In your view, is the United States deliberately targeting Iranian civilians?
No. But I think that US officials have shown a great lack of care towards civilian deaths. Including Hegseth defunding the division focused on reducing civilian harm. And how they handled the school bombing doesn't inspire confidence. So yeah, I think if we allow all parties in the conflict some wiggle room regarding collateral damage, I'm not sure who I'm supposed to be mad against.
Do you deny that Iran has been directing and supporting Hezbollah?
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?
Do you deny that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization?
If we apply the label fairly then I think they look like incompetent amateurs compared to Israel. As demonstrated in the footage of Gaza.
The Iranians chant death to America and the ayatollah has publicly gone to great length to explain that the slogan is not a direct wish for harm against American citizens, but a screed against their government and its belligerence and hostility towards Iran.
Which fits rather snugly as a contrast with the more Orwellian terminology of the west, like 'regime change', 'liberation' or other such verbiage. Which then translates to aerial bombing campaign with large amounts of civilians killed in practice.
Outside of drastic otherization and dehumanization, saying that Iran is exporting terrorism or spouting threatening rhetoric is functionally meaningless. In context their actions are a rational consequence to US and Israeli strategy in the region. Be that state sponsored invasions of Iran, the funding of terrorists in the region or other destabilizing actions such with Syria, Iraq and Libya.
And it's hard to pretend that Iran is hogging all the religious lunatics when Americans have decades of failed Zionist adjacent policies laying in their backyard. Along with theologians like Mike Huckabee, Pete Hegseth or Paula White.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
Yeah, the outgroup is evil, irrational and can't be trusted. This is also my outgroup
As I already said, I too would prefer Massachusetts. But that's not what we are comparing. You act like because Iran is bad that the US must be good and therefor has the moral mandate to do whatever it wants over there as if Iran will turn into rainbows and sunshine after the US bomb or occupy them. It wont. And the millions fleeing their homes, hundreds of thousand Iraqis dead, the families blown to bits in Syria, the children starved or ground to innocent pulps in rubble all over the middle east over decades of barbaric US and Zionist geopolitical strategy are a testament to that.
You weave moral narratives through paragraphs that, much like you accused me of doing, don't look like much when put into context. There are plenty of moral failings, needless suffering and death happening within the US. Did you know that in the US 80 thousand men are raped in prison every year? Well, that's almost half the total prison population of Iran being raped annually. Does this mean I like Evin Prison in Iran? No. And I'd still take my chances in an American prison, but it's not a good vs bad. You can still get sentenced to a rape box with a hateful rapist torturer in the US and be tortured and raped to death. And the authorities will try to lie to your families face about what happened whilst they watch you on a hospital bed, obviously beaten and braindead.
I would rather be an enemy of the US than an ally of Iran. Iran has responded to attacks by bombing civilian infrastructure of previously friendly countries. Meanwhile, the US is very precisely (as far as these things go) targeting enemy combatants and the infrastructure of war.
Given the US's track record of bombing civilians, along with Israel doing the same. This is not a serious point by you. The US and Israel have killed almost 1500 Iranian civilians in this conflict alone. In a single strike the US killed more school girls than Iran has killed foreign civilians via airstrike in the Gulf states this war. Hell, the CIA has tortured more people than Iran has killed civilians in the Gulf States. To say you would rather be an enemy of the US than an ally of Iran is completely delusional and so far outside any realm of reason.
Iran bombed their 'friends' because their 'friends' had US army bases and personnel on their soil, and the US attacked Iran. Iran attacked the bases and the hotels where the US army personnel were hiding. This is not a complicated, morally outrageous or otherwise perplexing development. It was completely predictable and Iran even said that this would be their response prior to the conflict.
I mean yes, it is clearly a purpose of Iran to stockpile conventional weapons until the point where attacking them would be too costly to consider. You do not dispute that their long term goal is to make a nuclear weapon.
Again you do not deal with the original claim you made. But instead try to reframe it as something else. And when you do it just sounds like Iran stockpiles weapons like every country with an active military does. So we've worked our way back from your hyperbole to reality. Having your armed forces serve as a deterrent to invasion is not taking those who want to invade you hostage.
On top of that I never said Iran wanting nukes is a conspiracy. And I explicitly said exactly this in my previous comment. If I was Iran I would want nukes, given there are two nuclear powers in the process of bombing me.
The contention here is not 'is Iran trying to get nukes'. I'd assume they are. The question is why shouldn't they try to get nukes? Nuclear proliferation is bad. But when you push the regimes back against a wall, what is their recourse? Both the US and Israel have demonstrated hostile intent to the tune I described in my opening paragraph. They also have nukes and have been flirting with using them against Iran through talk of totally annihilating their civilization or take them out entirely in a matter of hours. So what do you want them to do? Have the Israelis or the US shown any mercy to their rivals in the past conflicts? Aren't they all hiding or dead at this point? Even the ones who were open to negotiations like Saddam Hussein? How can Iran maintain its sovereignty under these conditions?
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
America doesn't kill its own citizens directly. They kill other countries citizens and in far greater number than Iran. There's also plenty of death by American government inaction, such as with drug overdoses, and plenty of rapes in American prisons. And people can be freely tortured if the CIA wants to torture them.
No, that is to demonstrate how far their current delivery systems have been proven to reach, since most people don't know how far Diego Garcia is from Iran. They have been working on delivery systems to reach the US. That is the direction they are heading.
If Iran wanted an ICBM they could presumably just make one, or buy one from the N-Koreans. The notion that there is an ongoing race against time to get to Iran before they incrementally develop a missile that can reach further and further feels like childish propaganda.
And yeah, I feel comfortable saying I want the US to be able to attack wherever it needs to, and I do not want Iran to attack me. This is only hypocrisy if you view the US government and the IRGC on equal moral footing. You seem to. I don't.
What does this even mean? Nothing of what we were talking about relates to whether or not America should be able to attack where it needs to and no, I don't want Iran to attack you either.
I never claimed that the IRGC were good for Iran. The point was very simple: Considering the fates of Syria, Libya and Iraq, no one should have any faith that an intervention by the US and Israel would have a more positive result for the Iranian people than what they are suffering now. There is no need to attack Iran, there is no 'greater good' that can come of it and the US has no definitive moral high ground or mandate to necessitate their decision to attack Iran.
You are comparing the IRGC to some American ideal like Massachusetts. In which case, I agree, USA all the way! But I'm comparing the IRGC to war torn years long military occupied Iran. Which is better for the Iranian people? Which is better for the world?
It's not a conspiracy theory that Iran has nuclear material and is working towards making nukes. This is something everyone has known and the framework everyone has been operating under for the past 20+ years.
This is just not what was going on in the comment you wrote or the comment I replied with. You said Iran was stockpiling conventional weapons to take Israel hostage to buy time for themselves to make a nuclear weapon. Again, what is this? Why do you write this?
I noted that it would make sense for Iran to want nuclear weapons as a deterrent. What gain Iran would have from instigating a nuclear war against the holder of the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world remains to be explained.
If catastrophizing otherization and conspiracy theories are enough to invade a nation, we can just call it a day.
The US and Israel also talk like cartoon villains. They also kill civilians en masse along with rape, torture and executions of prisoners. They also fund terrorists. If that wasn't enough, have some theological doomsday prophesy mixed in with your US military.
I don't doubt that the IRGC stands for its own interest and keeping itself in power over the interest of the Iranian people. But that goes double for the US and Israel. Considering the fates of Syria, Libya and Iraq, no one should have any faith that an intervention by the US and Israel would have a more positive result for the Iranian people than what they are suffering now. And no one believes the Iranian people have a favorable view of the US or Israeli governments or want to be ruled by them either.
If we cared about the Iranian people, and I do, we would stop playing these games against their government, open trade, and slowly worm ourselves into their society through the soft power of prosperity.
What's left of your post is rather annoying. It makes me feel you did not read what I wrote. As an example, I mention implicitly that communism was a threat to Iran. However you write as if I didn't:
As far as the actions the US took during the Cold War, people forget that the Soviet Union and Communism were legitimately bad and that communists were and still are existential threats.
Iran had a secular nationalist in charge. The US labeled him a communist to justify the intervention but he never was and the factual basis for doing so at the time was shaky at best.
You also claim I am taking things out of context, but instead of showing where, what context I removed and how it is relevant, you make a conceptual argument for what taking things out of context looks like. What is the point of this?
Finally, for the nukes and why Iran should not have them, you don't explain why. You just float an ominous conspiracy theories in a way that reads rather mad.
Meanwhile, the IRGC has enough enriched uranium to make several nukes and had delivery systems that could reach Eastern Europe
Is Iran intending on nuking eastern Europe?
They were working rapidly on stockpiling conventional weapons to overwhelm Israel and hold them hostage the same way North Korea is able to hold Seoul hostage.
Again, this reads like a conspiracy theory fever dream. Israel has the largest military in the world backing it... Like... How would this even work?
There's only one reason to have these expensive and risky programs and to keep increasing the range.
To have a nuclear deterrent so the US and Israel stop bombing them? Or are they planning to nuke the entire world?
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.
More options
Context Copy link