domain:infonomena.substack.com
SkoomaDentist
36m ago
How on earth is always using a turn signal "totally useless and actively harmful"?
comfortable
41m ago
As soon as you see a "lane ends ahead" sign you should be trying to get over. Don't ride to the very end and then expect to squeeze in.
Eh, if the lane ends with a forced merge into the lane beside it, waiting until the end gives a predictable time and place that the merge will occur. In times of heavy traffic, it also maximizes road usage (and if you don't drive until the end, someone else behind you will, so you might as well). If the lane ends with, for example, a forced turn off the highway, then I agree. I especially agree in times of heavy traffic. Don't make the people who actually want to use that turn off the highway wait because you want to squeeze into the heavy traffic later.
SkoomaDentist
41m ago
4-lane divided highways are signed at 100 km/h or less
The normal speed limit on highways is 120 km/h. 100 km/h is only during winter time.
phailyoor
42m ago
Mazda CX5 ... Some people think this is "fun to drive".
For a crossover, it's pretty great. Feels like driving a normal car, unlike the cr-v or rav4, which feel like ass to drive.
the_Culture_is_great
46m ago
- Yes for habit, no penalty if not
- Yes for cars, Idaho stop should be legal for bikes. A very slow rolling stop in a car is a minor sin though, many places would be fine with yields only.
- No, minor speeding is fine as long as safe for conditions - in sense areas traffic calming design is better, on highways limits should typically be higher. I'd prefer saner speed limits that are enforced to the letter in general rather than loosely goosy ones though.
- Yes, left lane is for passing (on freeways, streets are different due to turns). Riding a bumper is dangerous, but expected to happen if you're not passing on the left
- No, dangerous for everyone. Accept that the other person isn't considerate and merge safely later.
- No, despite the fact that some drivers can make better decisions, the rules should be universal for everyone.
- Bikes should take the entire lane if it's not safe to pass within the lane with >1m of space.
phailyoor
48m ago
Used B9 Audi S4. There's something about the tuning of a sports car that makes it much more fun to drive and throw around corners. I also drove an Accord for a while and it's plenty fast (especially after upgrading it with racing pedals), but I don't have the urge to go loco with it.
Luxury cars also do add some bells and whistles, like RGB interior lighting, better materials, massaging seats, more screens etc. It's nothing that really affects getting from point a to b, but it feels nice to have. If you have the money and drive a lot then splurge, because you'll spend hours sitting in there.
Southkraut
Vibe of vibes, saith the Preacher, vibe of vibes; all is vibe.
56m ago
In addition to what all the others wrote, and keeping in mind that leftists are an increasingly rare but still essential resource on the motte, why not leave?
You can enjoy living in a bubble where you're right and everyone around you is right, everyone agrees on everything and there needn't be any controversial debates in which, god forbid, there might not be one side that is clearly correct and another side that falls in line after being shown the obvious truth. Instead, if your American bubbles are anything like our German bubbles, you and the well-aligned people around you who already know what is right and what is wrong can heap fire and brimstone on the outgroup with impunity. Not, mind you, that discourse on the motte is always better than that. But it'll feel good. It'll feel good to be right, and among other right-thinking people, and to hate the wrong-thinkers together. You can bond over your shared hatred, and if that ever gets boring, have a little purity spiral and ostracize some of your former own who didn't stand sufficiently far on the right side of history. And when you're done hating, you can go back to educating those around you, teaching them the latest and greatest in sociopolitical innovation.
Leftists do this. Rightists do this. Apolitical people who stumble into political bubbles and just try to fit in do this. Why shouldn't you do it too?
And especially why bother continuing to argue when doing so is only likely to be """rewarded""" with mass-downvotes and distributed dogpiles by commentators on a forum you don't even really like, and only stick around on out of some sort of... IDK, perverse masochism, I guess?
The majority of people here are willing to engage in reasonably good faith with fairly deep arguments , which you typically will not find on Reddit, Twitter or elsewhere. There is an obvious a rightwing bias, as this site's userbase is primarily composed of members of the right-leaning, abandoned themotte subreddit. Reddit's socialism or democratic subs may be more up your alley though; there are many to choose from, whereas Reddit by comparison has actively censored anything to the right of the mainstream, and is why this site was created.
Despite my faint hopes, the dysfunction in this country appears to be acclerating.
The thing is, both sides see the country spiraling down the drain or otherwise in decline, but in the opposite direction.
celluloid_dream
1hr ago
Stop signs are periods, not commas.
If a driver has slowed to a crawl (walking pace or less) for a stop sign, they have done 99% of the work toward preventing an accident. Assuming they would fully stop if anything else is nearby, then to me, it doesn't matter if they roll the stop sign slowly on a clear intersection.
If you feel differently, I'm curious why
remzem
1hr ago
haha, I like this moderating more. Less hiding behind the sterile legalese. Upvoted.
Why not bother?
By the sounds of it, you've become disillusioned by a sense of your impotence at changing others to your preferred views. Congratulations! You are recognizing a truth that already existed.
Be at ease. You have not become less persuasive over time, nor have humans become more unreasonable. Political tribalism did not begin in the last decades. The internet just brought the filters that already existed into clearer focus, by putting people who were previously behind regional media filters in contact with each other. The nature of connecting people is that you can now disagree with people who you previously never would have known strenuously disagreed with you.
But again, this was already the case. What has changed isn't the circumstances, but your cognition. If you only bothered to talk rather than fight because of a flawed and faulty cognition let you convince yourself that you were cleverer and more persuasive than you actually were, then perhaps you should not bother. (With either, obviously- if you can't trust your judgement on how well you can talk, you certainly shouldn't trust your judgement on whether and when to fight.)
But bothering doesn't require that sort of self-importance. And thanks to that, even if you can't force others to change, you can change your own thinking, and thus your reason to bother.
Why bother continuing to argue (and especially why bother continuing to argue online- an exercise in futility if I ever heard one!) when doing so is unlikely to change the other person's mind?
Why do you believe changing the other person's mind is the point of a public argument, as opposed to shaping the audience's opinion?
An internet forum is called a forum precisely because it involves more than two people. There are the debaters, and there is the audience, and the prize of any public debate has always been the opinion of the people not directly speaking. This is why the public fora have long been the political centers, and why part of rhetoric has been how to manage the appeals to the audience's sensibility.
The audience is almost never the opponent in the exchange. The audience is, by its nature, curious enough to pay attention, but ambivalent enough to not be taking part in the first place. The stage of a forum is for those who show up to speak, but the audience is many times larger. The prize is when successful arguments get echoed by people other than your opponent at the time, and/or when someone else re-iterates your previous rebuttal if the opponent tries that same line of argument again. Or, in a specific argument, when someone else enters with an unexpected concurrence, because you've written in a way that gives them something to build off of rather than focus on a solely personal bickering.
However, it is very hard to sway the audience if you do not bother to show up and try.
Why bother continuing to argue when the people I'm disagreeing with seem to have beliefs & experiences so wildly opposite of my own that I have to wonder if we're even living in the same country?
Because you live in the same country regardless of what you wonder, and your audience knows it.
If you are posting on this forum, you are part of a continental-scale civilization. There is no 'everyone has the same experience' commonality when some people face burning summers and others freezing winters, let alone more nuanced local institutional effects. Local political machines, dominant themes and trends in schools, different religiosity (let alone which religion), and so on. If you are only able to bother disagreeing with people who you have very similar beliefs and experiences, that is a limitation on your ability to persuade.
This limitation on persuading the audience is best addressed by.... interacting more with people whose beliefs and experiences contrast with your own.
Why bother continuing to argue when people I disagree with just seem like they fundamentally can't be reasoned with at all?
Because the validity of fundamental reasonableness is a judgement for the audience, not the arguer.
To paraphrase a certain book, if a man accuses his fellow of being fundamentally unreasonable, one of them is. If there are specific people you want to write off as being in bad faith, then by all means do so. The ignore feature is there for a reason. But when speaking with categories of people, part of intellectual humility is recognizing that we can stand accused of the same things. You can make any accusation you want, but the merit / weight it has comes from the people needing to be convinced. Namely, you have to convince the audience that you are not the unreasonable one.
Fortunately, the best way to win a challenge of reasonableness, and thus disqualify the other person's influence on the audience, is to publicly and persuasively be a more reasonable person.
And especially why bother continuing to argue when doing so is only likely to be """rewarded""" with mass-downvotes and distributed dogpiles by commentators on a forum you don't even really like, and only stick around on out of some sort of... IDK, perverse masochism, I guess?
Because there is an audience here that will recognize good effort, and good rhetoric.
The Motte is a place of contrarians, not conservatives. It is not hard to be north-of-neutral on even contentious topics if you phrase well. Distributed dogpiles, on the other hand, are consistent indicators of often substantial issues. This could be a lazy pejorative, blatant bias, or letting your personal contempt for others show through.
This is valuable insight to learn about one's self. If one actually wants to become persuasive, then they need to learn to recognize, and mitigate, their bad habits.
So I ask again- why bother?
Why not?
Are you the sort of person who only bothers to engage people you disagree with when you expect to win?
Is the time for talking over?
If the time for talking wasn't over during much larger and more violent political violence years ago, why would it be over now?
So I ask again- why bother? Is the time for talking over?
Its a good question, although it appears I've come about to it from the opposite direction you have.
The factor that has gotten me to just about throw in the towel on the entire concept of political discourse is watching for four years while one side kept pointing out that Joe Biden was very probably demented in the most medically literal sense of the term, and the other side, the full weight of every mainstream/respectable media and academic outlet claimed this was a nutty conspiracy.
Then the presidential debate happened.
And now, having the exact same parties who maintained that he was just fine and dandy are doing the rounds on book tours and media interviews claiming "SOME (completely unidentifiable) PARTICULAR PERSONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE MISLED EVERYBODY ABOUT BIDEN'S MENTAL ACUITY." No way, really? Somehow they seemed quite eager to be misled in this way.
And now that we've admitted to being misled, are we casting blame anywhere? Why... no. Its all just a completely amorphous conspiracy comprised of nobody in particular. Oh well. What a weird chapter in history that we can now close while suffering no consequences whatsoever.
Just a perfect encapsulation of the problem: an enforced narrative that nobody is permitted to question, a breaking point where the narrative CANNOT be maintained in the face of unavoidable reality. A brief period of panicked denial... then distraction... and finally a very carefully constructed withdrawal that absolves anyone of blame and pretends the whole issue was just an honest mistake with little or no malicious motivation whatsoever.
How does one fight such a keenly evolved, utterly remorseless memetic entity, where its self-preservation is dependent solely on how many skulls it can lodge itself in as deeply as possible.
I admire its purity. Such a perfectly enclosed epistemic environment, policed by the most advanced egregore wranglers that history has ever produced.
Regardless of how logically sound and carefully researched my arguments are (and I really DO spend a lot of time researching my arguments) it cannot compete with an endless stream of repeated thought terminating cliches and carefully curated facts and stats that grant the pretense of knowledge but deny someone any real understanding of cause and effect.
And now we can add sycophantic LLMs to the mix, which can be curated to at least try to maintain a given narrative and write pleasingly-worded missives that either dodge the real question of what is 'true' or can lead you just far enough along the path towards truth to make you feel informed... then pull you off in a different direction, forgetting to take the last few steps and actually change your mind.
As the kids say, "We're fuckin' cooked."
Of course, I'm so rabidly averse to violent conflict as a first, or second, or even third resort that I am (perhaps irrationally so) very willing to seek peaceful, cooperative resolution options right up until the very moment somebody flicks a fist in my direction.
And my current solution has been to insulate myself from the attack vectors of that memetic entity. Adblock on. No cable tv. No influencers. Don't read the articles, don't listen to the podcaster, don't watch the movie written by the hollywood leftist. Maybe read the books but definitely don't try to discuss the book on reddit. Do not give the hostile egregore full write access to your brain.
I live in one of the reddest areas of a red (formerly purple) state, and have manipulated enough about my immediate environment that the chances of the culture war frontlines ever reaching me are virtually nil. This comes at some level of personal cost, but I've placed such a high value on maintaining my sanity that I GLADLY pay it.
And so I sit here wondering WHY I still pop onto themotte to do a little bit of sparring, keeping my debate skills honed, when even around here the odds of any given argument or set of arguments moving the needle on someone's personal beliefs seem slim.
One of the arguments in favor of democratic modes of government is that it allows peaceful transition of power because elections are viable proxies for battles/military force.
Quoth Federalist No. 10:
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.
That is, the side that manages to pull 51% or more of the population that is engaged enough to vote can reasonably claim "if there was to be a physical war our side, being more numerous, is more likely to win it. In lieu of fighting that would be ruinous to both sides, you will accept our rule for a few years, we will rule with a certain amount of respect/deference, and then we can run another simulation to see if anythings changed."
Of course, it seems like the Dems/lefties haven't managed to process how they got trounced in the last election, even with some thumbs on the scale, and what this implies about their popularity in the country. So they "convulse the society" and "clog the administration" (how many national injunctions are we at?), but are 'unable to execute and mask its violence under... the Constitution.'
And yet we know that democratic elections don't completely avert violence, or else Mexico's most recent election wouldn't have been so damn bloody. Turns out that violence is also a way to influence outcomes in a democracy, when you don't expect the votes to go your way 'organically.' So there's a bit of a feedback loop.
So in a sense, the current upwelling of conflict doesn't read to me as a real instigation to war, but more just a disadvantaged minority faction pressing the 'foment chaos' button as a means of gumming up the works for the majority and maybe influencing outcomes, at least locally, towards their favor.
No, I'm not drawing a moral equivalence between drug cartels and ICE protestors, or even rioters. Just pointing out how these actions are closer to the "open violent conflict" end of the spectrum than the "free discourse and exchange of ideas as means of persuasion" that was idealized by, e.g., the Federalist Papers and that we try to maintain on this forum.
So what are we doing here? What's the point? Why bother?
I'd posit that everyone is in the continual stage of trying to size up the field and gauge the relative power of each tribe so as to determine if it is possible to make any decisive attacks or maneuvers that will lead to one group's victory and ascension to unquestioned rule over the cultural landscape. And the literal landscape, too.
Which faction has the best tacticians? The most guns? The most tightly organized units? The most efficient logistics? The most loyal/zealous footsoldiers? Which is favored by God? (love that scene, perfect illustration of this point about sizing up the force your opponent can bring to bear), which side has their Oppenheimer, their Feynman, their Von Neumann who can build superweapons, memetic or otherwise?
And as long as we're mostly convinced that the aggregate combat strength of each side is approximately at enough parity that the conflict would lead to uncapped casualties, including complete obliteration (which, in the age of nuclear MAD is a real possibility!), then even a conflict that you win is just not worth entering in the first place.
I'd argue that the more kinetic version of this is what led to the openly aggressive conflict with Israel and Palestine... and Israel and Iran, more recently. Israel knows it can pound Palestine into a fine powder if left to do it... but they can't ignore the various potential interlopers who might enter the fray. And so occasionally swatting Iran across the nose is a nice reminder to the rest to keep the claws sheathed.
Its why the Pakistan India thing didn't truly spiral out of control, neither side had a path to victory that wouldn't OBVIOUSLY leave both sides in ruins.
This little site is just one facet of a glittering jewel that is human social network, whose topology is beyond the comprehension of any individual human, but maybe if enough of us enlightened apes discuss our various perspectives and unique insights (we have those, right?) then the collective hivemind can manage to ascertain enough of the rough shape to determine if any particular faction has an egregious edge in power.
Because let me admit, about two years or so ago I would have told you that the Blue Tribe was close to locking insurmountable advantages which it could leverage to maintain complete control, and I was mentally gearing up to have to shoot at [redacted] agents in a last ditch effort to not be assimilated.
And now, though, now it looks like the ballgame is way closer than I anticipated, and I am now more uncertain than before about the current trajectory of U.S. political power. I guess Red Tribe is currently at bat, and they're trying to load up the bases, but really, really counting on some kind of grand slam to put them far ahead before, presumably, blue tribe grabs the levers of power again.
So I keep coming back here, hoping someone will hit on the observation or connect some dots that will help me foresee the unforeseeable and align myself with the right people (or, failing that, align myself AGAINST the right people) to ensure my longer term success and survival.
Some might actually be intending to get froggy if the tide is shown to turn in their favor, and are quietly trying to sense who might fight back, who might ally with them, who might look the other way. Maybe they want moral justification for doing some really nasty thing to the hated opposition. I don't know. But I think we're all at least idly, casually interested in figuring out the shape of the conflict and the ebb and flow of the battle and then making whatever use of that information we can.
And where else can we go for an actual clearheaded view of things?
pigeonburger
2hr ago
Yeah, I imagine that's the bulk of what they do. And all the time spent shadowing the Chinese subs, US sonarmen get better at identifying them, and more sound from the particular screw on these boats' propeller gets recorded and then processed to help algorithms pick it up from noise.
Zephyr
2hr ago
You misunderstand - I’m not claiming that jobs are a fixed number, but I am claiming that they do not track 1-to1 with population change.
To take an absolutely toy example - say 1 farmer can serve a population of up to 50. If you have an initial population of 20, you will have 1 farmer. If you add an additional 25 people to the population, you will still only need a singular farmer. If 5 of the people added are only qualified to do farming, you will have fierce competition for the farming job, as the population can’t support 5 farmers.
What I am saying is happening here is that there is a percentage of the population that is currently employable as manual labour. The manual labour jobs are kept cheap by having this population supplemented by immigrant labour. Removing the immigrant population that is currently taking these roles reduces the number of total jobs, but by less than the number of immigrants removed.
Even were the number of jobs 100% tied to the population (which I dispute, based on the percentage of the population that is NEET), you’d still see a temporary advantage for the workers - jobs are sticky. Picture it like pulling a bucket of pudding out of a bathtub - the area where you pulled out the bucket will temporarily have a void, which slowly gets replenished by the area around it, until the entire tub is back and level. This would give employees in that market tremendous leverage, as they can name their price while the employers are recovering from the shock.
MathWizard
Good things are good
2hr ago
I see where you're coming from. On a gut level I immediately want to retort that punishment and forgiveness should be equally affected by your smallness and anonymity. If you're just one of many people such that your forgiveness barely matters, then your punishment barely matters too, especially since the external outcome of your forgiveness would be the cessation of your punishment/shaming.
But since it's also the case that
A: Punishments are applied in a decentralized way, with each person using their own individual criteria for what should receive shame
B: The impact of punishment via shame is nonlinear. Getting 20 death threats doesn't actually feel twice as bad as getting 10 death threats, so reducing the number of shamers by 50% doesn't actually help all that much.
Your point probably stands. Aella could repent and change her ways, and maybe 50% of people would forgive her and the shame would go down, but the other 50% would continue And also probably a bunch of sex-positive people would start shaming her and it might even end up worse. So then she's paid the massive social and lifestyle costs of repenting without actually solving the shame. Without a near-universally recognized authority who can forgive her and enforce other people's forgiveness (in deed, even if not in belief), she has no incentive to repent (beyond a genuine realization of being wrong and a self-sacrificing desire to do the right thing despite the costs).
Which in turn massively decreases the pro-social utility of shame. The point of punishments is to disincentivize the punished behavior, both on the part of the person being punished, and other people who witness them. But we've essentially lost half of that. If we make her miserable enough maybe we'll scare others away from following her example, but sometimes young people are stupid and do stuff before they realize the consequences. And anyone who does and then changes their mind is just stuck in a world where they can't be forgiven. Or more likely, doubles down on the side they're already on because they know they can't go back.
I don't know that we can do anything about that. But it still kind of sucks.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2hr ago
Yes to turn signals otherwise they don’t become habitual,
No to stop signs because a rolling stop doesn’t necessarily increase safety (I find full-stop people often actually delay braking more),
No to strict speed because not even civil engineers intend them to be literal law, and anyways you sometimes need to speed to pass,
No, many roads aren’t wide enough for half the lane to be purely a passing lane and close trailing is dangerous,
Yes, but mostly because I lived in Miami for a while where all drivers are aggressive,
No; all these norms should be universal,
Until I die I will insist that full (non LED-obscene level) brightness lights should be required on all cars, all times of day, all lighting conditions.
Felagund
2hr ago
Why bother? Because forcing yourself and the other person to dig, think through unexpected things, etc. makes both of you come to more nuanced, defensible, in-touch-with-reality versions of your positions.
And secondly, for the sake of those watching, who may not yet have committed to positions.
I'm agreed with you that we're on a terrible trajectory. E.g. the judiciary and presidency are on a crash course almost no matter what happens, given that, right now, all the district judges are making ridiculous TROs far overstepping their power (so that ignoring the courts is a growing sentiment on the online right), and on the other hand, the democrats want to pack the court. The chances we have a judiciary functioning properly in 30 years feel much lower than I would like. That's just an example, across the board, from both sides we're seeing escalations, radicalization, degradation of norms, which invites more of the same.
Felagund
2hr ago
Could you elaborate on what you meant by this? I'm not tracking perfectly:
Because there's still quite a lot of us on the left who fundamentally dispute the framing of
COVID gamesmanship about religious services or with visas
I very much do not grant this!
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
2hr ago
Where do you live where they have letters in the speed limits?
That's what road grades are.
fmac
2hr ago
I don't really see the issue with having a short list of "countries worth defending"
My list is incredibly short, and it's getting shorter as western nations/political elites signal clearly that their values and mine are becoming more and more at odds
Basically every historical country isn't worth defending as of 2025, because human society and norms have changed since then, and now they'd be outdated.
If I lived in the 1800s, I'd like the countries around then, and shit on the countries from 1600 for being backwards idiots. But I don't live in the 1800s so instead I look down on them for being backwards idiots. I imagine the people of 2200 will feel that way about us.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2hr ago
Fake history. The Six-Day War was started by Israel and they were the aggressor in Suez.
This is, at the very least, debatable. Egypt massed troops on the border and was making threats (and closed the Straits of Tiran after Israel said they would consider this an act of war). Whether Nasser was just saber-rattling for appearances, or really meant to attack Israel we may never know, but if you mass troops on the border of a hostile neighbor and talk about how you're going to finish the job you failed to do last war, you should not be surprised if your neighbor decides to take you seriously.
The guerilla tactics used in Israel's early days were not nice. Nor is the ongoing occupation. Israelis and Arabs are certainly both guilty of war crimes. That said, you seem like most dedicated Israel-haters to take every Hamas PR release at face value while playing down Palestinian atrocities. Israel might not have a lot of charity left for Palestinians, but they'd still take even a disadvantageous deal if they actually believed it would lead to peace. (Obviously, the likelihood of this now is very close to zero.)
Israel isn't pure good facing pure evil. Israel has as much blood on their hands as every other country, and more than most, but they're facing people who are even worse. Sorry, that's the truth, and I have sympathy for Palestinians, but both their government (what there is of it) and, frankly, their culture, is terrible. Even other Arabs hate Palestinians and couldn't care less about dead Palestinian children except as props to make Israel look bad.
Maybe we should just abandon Israel and let them sink or swim on their own. I'd actually be okay with that, as long as there are no crocodile tears when Israel says "Fine, we'll show you what a genocide actually looks like."
Celestial-body-NOS
Why should Man not rebel against Nature, when Nature herself is in rebellion against Justice?
2hr ago
2: Stop signs are periods, not commas.
3: Where do you live where they have letters in the speed limits? All the ones I've seen are made out of numbers!
phailyoor
3hr ago
I post on here because it's fun. And I hope I am smart enough to stop if it ever stops being so.
We may be having some of the highest quality political discourse on the internet right here, but in the grand scheme of things we're relatively inconsequential. Winning the discussion here won't stop knuckleheads from spouting idiotic lies elsewhere, and certainly won't result in political change.
Nothing ever happens.
Revolutionary Iran by Axworthy only covers to 2012 but is probably the best introduction (meant only loosely, it’s relatively comprehensive unless you’re fascinated by a particular area of the Iranian state) to modern post-revolutionary Iranian history and the ideology of the revolutionaries before and in government. It shows quite meticulously how Khomeini strategically and patiently exploited just about every single cultural, class, political and ethnic division in Iranian politics to grant himself a level of absolute power rare even in the most autocratic traditional Islamic societies and then set about building an elaborate political operation and pipeline that sidelined even many of his own allied clerics (including many hardline Islamists) to ensure that the state he created would be extremely difficult to dismantle from within, even though he knew it would always be unpopular with Iran’s large, secular, urban PMC and wider middle class.
More options
Context Copy link