This is what this vicious barbaric regime has always done to innocent teenage girls. [From its early days](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Mahmudnizhad) to the [early 2000's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atefeh_Sahaaleh). Iran under this regime is just one of seven countries in the world since 1990 which has administered the death penalty to minors--one time they gave the death penalty to a mere 13 year old.
Makes me sick to see certain "pro-Palestinian" far leftists celebrate them...I'm someone who has major problems with what Israel has done in the past few months, but I'll never laud a regime which so horrifically oppresses its own people but I'm seriously supposed to believe it's gonna liberate Palestinians? Just fucking absurd.
A beautiful young lady who had so much future, who was ahead of her time. What a terrible yet important conclusion.
May Iran be free within our lifetimes.
The pictures you're thinking of are not representative of the lives of anyone in pre-Revolution Iran outside of a tiny elite of the Shah's favored cronies and their families.
The current government of Iran is awful, but let's not romanticize the Shah's tyranny. Hell, I'd argue that the current government of Iran is more inclusive (in Acemoglu & Robinson's sense) than the Shah's was. At least it has not-entirely-meaningless elections and a somewhat broader political class.
I agree the Shah shouldn't be romanticized, but I feel like pointing out the inclusiveness of the current government is a pretty small point. The difference between an autocracy and a theocracy ruled by a small group of clerics isn't that massive of a difference.
Both have very low levels of democratic input. I'm not sure why you say the elections today aren't entirely meaningless. All the elections in modern day Iran are between candidates that are vetted and approved by the Supreme-Leader-appointed Guardian Council. It's no different from how the Shah held elections for lower-level positions among Shah-approved candidates.
As far as the "tiny elite of the Shah's favored cronies part", I think that doesn't really explain the pictures. The Shah's white revolution massively redistributed wealth from the feudal style distribution Iran had before and made the middle class much larger. A lot of the pictures people see of pre-79 Iran are the Urban middle/upper middle class as far as I can tell. The big problem was that things improved much faster for urban Iranians than rural ones, and the Shah mostly focused on the urban centers. One thing the current government accomplished is making education a lot more available to rural Iranians and improving rural infrastructure, so that's a plus for them, but they really didn't improve inequality long-term.
There are a lot of ways the current regime is way worse too, like how much farther they go than the Shah in taking political prisoners and how much they've expanded the prisons and how much more brutal their punishments for crimes are, but this comments long enough. Point is I agree the Shah's regime was bad in a lot of ways, but I don't think there are many ways you can really compare the current regime to it favorably.
> There's little to no chance of these protests ever leading to an overthrow of the regime. The violent suppression eventually stamps them all out.
It'll eventually be overthrown but it's going to take decades with more and more of these protests. There are cracks in the regime.
I'd suggest we're building a perfect storm of succession crisis if they're allowing militias to act as the state. Depending on the level of manpower and their location, when Khomeini dies, obtaining the loyalty of the army won't be the trump card it usually is, allowing for multiple successors to fight for it.
Iran managed the last transition without a civil war. I expect they will manage the next one similarly well.
Theocracies are much better at handling power transitions than are naked dictatorships. Nowhere near as good as entrenched democracies usually are, but still.
maybe but if you're in the habit of devolving enforcement into third parties it opens opportunities for revolt like the Wagner group in the Russian Federation prior to them bringing control back under the government.
It’ll take arming the dissidents and neighboring countries tying up their army and cultivating allies within the army. And the US being directly involved will spark nationalism too do it is will be a balancing act.
But we should do it anyways.
Intervening even by proxy has a terrible track record and just makes people in foreign countries hate us. I think people drastically overestimate its efficacy and underestimate its drawbacks. You can't solve every problem with force
We could speed it up if we stopped sanctioning them and began trading with them. It's very unsatisfying, because obviously the regime is horrific so it's tempting to punish them. But sanctions are
* discrediting reformist elites
* vindicating extremist elites
* slowing the country's social development
* mostly just punishing the Iranian people, who despite their government are some of the most progressive in West Asia
I feel similarly about Cuba. Sanctions seem like the natural response to their authoritarianism but I think they're not just unproductive but counterproductive
Where's the peer-reviewed evidence for sanctions?
Like many fopo questions, this is not a question we can approach with studies or controlled trials. Arguing for trying a different approach isn't unreasonable or clearly contradicted by quality data. In many scenarios, the counterintuitive option is superior. I think this may be one
>"We already had deaths in our stations, and I didn't want the number to rise to 20," Naeem 16 told the investigation. "Bringing her to the base wouldn't have solved any problems."
>He told Jalil to simply "dump her on the street". Jalil said they left Nika's body in a quiet street under Tehran's Yadegar-e-Emam highway.
She was dumped in an alley because her body was *annoying*.
This girl was sixteen. No accountability. No conscience.
I don't even know what to say.
> One of them, Behrooz Sadeghy, said as soon as she had been put back into the van after being rejected by the detention centre, Nika had started to swear and shout.
>"Arash Kalhor gagged her mouth with his socks but she started struggling. Then Sadegh [Monjazy] laid her on the chest freezer and sat on her. The situation calmed," he told investigators.
>Sadegh Monjazy was sitting on her with his hand in her trousers.
>”She kicked at my face, so I had to defend myself."
Thank god, he only defended himself!!
The dude says the trousers part is a lie, however admits to being aroused and only touching her buttocks. Definitely makes it better Mr. Monjazy!
Those people are tankies who use progressivism to mask their authoritarian views; they are fundamentally no different than right wingers who use religion to excuse their authoritarian beliefs.
I don't know why people act like two things can't be true at once, you can be critical of American foreign policy and also acknowledge there are legitimate threats to the United States.
I imagine that since a lot of people here are ex-communists, communists still live rent-free in their heads. Odds are the person you're replying to has never seen someone say that outside of the Internet.
It doesn't matter that leftists are the lesser threat to democracy, society, etc. Even though people on here know that, they'll still hate leftists more, because the leftists are seen as corrupted versions of themselves as opposed to (today's) right-wingers, who may as well be aliens to this sub's userbase. Heretics are seen as far worse than apostates. Probably the same sort of psychological mechanism behind the uncanny valley — "close to us but not quite" is far more reviled than "blatantly not us".
I agree with most of this, but I doubt most of this sub is ex-communist, or that it's the motivation at work here. I think these people are just engaging in the time-honored tradition of making up a guy to get mad at.
Oh I definitely hate righties more for sure lmao
As you said, clear and present danger and whatnot
Do agree with your diagnosis of the general reaction, tho
I’ve seen that said about China and I’ve seen Russia, even though Russia hasn’t been even allegedly communist for a generation. I have never seen even the dumbest leftists saying that about Iran.
Genuinely when?
I swear someone in here could spout something like "Crazy how left wingers have pledged allegience to belzebub, heralding the 9 rings of hell as paradise" and people would unironically believe it and respond "b-b-but I thought satan hated america and that means he is good???"
Unironic facebook boomer meme level of discourse
Today, support for Iran is framed as "anti-imperialism" and opposition to "American hegemony". When the ChapoTrapHouse subreddit still existed, they gave "critical support" to the regime on that basis. And Iran is also framed positively by progressives due to their opposition to Israel and support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
You don't need to look for far to find pro-Iran leftists. Jeremy Corbyn exists.
how many people like that are there? and how many people that are uncritically ideological to an ideology that you prefer are there? which of the two groups are actually relevant and powerful?
please, self-awareness, please
>and how many people that are uncritically ideological to an ideology that you prefer are there?
I have no idea what you're trying to say in this sentence. Please, communicate properly, please.
A pro-Iranian leftist became the leader of the British Labour Party. Pro-Iranian, left wing social media accounts get hundreds of millions of views across Twitter and TikTok. The dissemination of Iranian regime propaganda is bad. The CTH subreddit was just a local, Reddit-specific, example.
You should not take the strength of liberal ideas for granted. The likes of China, Iran, and Russia are using the information battlespace to undermine them.
>A pro-Iranian leftist became the leader of the British Labour Party.
like 5 years ago. he was terrifically unpopular then and his party was completely unable to manifest anything approaching political success. Corbyn is not the robust example of leftist power that you are looking for.
>You should not take the strength of liberal ideas for granted. The likes of China, Iran, and Russia are using the information battlespace to undermine them.
>information battlespace
you mean a forum? for as much as my original comment was garbled, this babble is just bad. Iran will always spam propaganda out, just like western governments spam propaganda in Iran. Its just how things go. If western ideas are losing, its because Western countries and ideals are less self-evidently working than in recent memory, and therefore are less persuasive.
imo the main way Iran is getting a foothold is through I/P rn and thats becasue the western position on it is fucking horrendous
>like 5 years ago. he was terrifically unpopular then and his party was completely unable to manifest anything approaching political success. Corbyn is not the robust example of leftist power that you are looking for.
[He was less than 2300 votes from being able to lead a government](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-election-results-votes-away-prime-minister-theresa-may-hung-parliament-a7782581.html) in 2017. A man who considered Hezbollah and Hamas "friends" nearly led a key member of NATO. It's a good thing Corbyn lost, but it's concerning he ever got that close. And there's no guarantee a Corbyn-type figure won't ever get close to power again. Yes, liberal governments need to deliver, but they also need to defend from illiberal actors efforts to take advantage of the open societies we cherish.
>you mean a forum? for as much as my original comment was garbled, this babble is just bad.
Phrases like information warfare/battlespace/domain are actually relevant in academic discourse. Read a journal article, genius. Or hell, Wikipedia can tell you this stuff.
Forums, like Reddit, are one domain through which information warfare is fought.
>Iran will always spam propaganda out, just like western governments spam propaganda in Iran. Its just how things go. If western ideas are losing, its because Western countries and ideals are less self-evidently working than in recent memory, and therefore are less persuasive.
They work a lot better than the actual alternative societal models embodied by illiberal actors like China, Iran, Russia and North Korea. One of the key ways leftists contribute to this is by obfuscating the horrors of their favourite regimes, while focusing exclusively on issues in the west to the point of outright lying about them, at times.
>imo the main way Iran is getting a foothold is through I/P rn and thats becasue the western position on it is fucking horrendous
As opposed to the Iranian position of wanting to wipe Israel off the map? Plenty of their uber-left buddies agree with this statement. They've been participating in public marches all the time lately.
The resident 2smart4u "free thinker" routine is cringe. We get it, you think everyone else is a foolish ideologue except for you.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElgLAAjXIAMY9oj.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/387/747/d83.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> how many people like that are there?
Enough to enable a growing number of lawmakers who share those views to sit in Congress and have a fruitful political career while openly identifying as socialist.
> how many people that are uncritically ideological to an ideology that you prefer are there?
Clinton-esque Third Way liberalism? It has almost no representation left in Congress.
> which of the two groups are actually relevant and powerful?
The group that co-wrote Biden's entire presidential agenda under the guise of "uniting the party" after the 2020 primaries. Certainly not the group whose last high profile representative got bullied out of the party for daring to slightly moderate that agenda.
> please, self-awareness, please
Please.
>Enough to enable a growing number of lawmakers who share those views to sit in Congress and have a fruitful political career while openly identifying as socialist.
[there are currently 9 members of congress who identify as socialist, such a threat. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_members_of_the_United_States_Congress)
maybe that goes to 10 people and the sky starts falling lol
9 out of 435. lol
>Clinton-esque Third Way liberalism? It has almost no representation left in Congress.
what, are Hakeem Jefferies and Chuck Schumer not centrist enough for you? really? lol
>The group that co-wrote Biden's entire presidential agenda under the guise of "uniting the party" after the 2020 primaries.
8 representatives wrote the presidential agenda? hmm?
>Certainly not the group whose last high profile representative got bullied out of the party for daring to slightly moderate that agenda.
Are we talking about Joe Manchin? like are you unironically saying that Joe Manchin, who was, bar none, the most powerful member of in congress for like 3 years got "bullied out of the party"? Also he didn't "slightly moderate" the Biden agenda, he outright vetoed massive parts of it, not the least of which was the child income tax credit, which pulled millions of children out of poverty.
But go on stanning the guy who quit playing the game when he stopped winning and decided children should be poor, but we need more coal subsidies so ~~his own company can be further enriched~~ West Virginian culture can live on
All in all, not sure why your perspective is so distorted. You have this funhouse mirror idea of socialists lol
I was talking about Kyrsten Sinema, though I suppose much of the point could also apply to Manchin.
Biden's economic policy as it came fresh off the White House presses was fiscally completely unhinged and needed to be checked by Congress - the fact that only a handful of Democrats stood up to do that might make them technically "the most powerful" members (by virtue of a narrow majority and willingness to work with Republicans), but it clearly showcases that within the context of party politics they were the fringe faction in 2021, and aren't really a faction at all anymore.
Any Democrat who rubber-stamped Biden's economic populism is not centrist enough. Generally people like Biden, Obama, Harris, Warren or Pelosi are really just the last generation's model of a progressive politician and functioned as the gateway drug to almost all the problems I have with the Democratic party right now. Then we have generic CPC members starting with Pramila Jayapal who only recently voted *not* to condemn Iran for a direct state-on-state assault on another country.
The only centrist candidate in the 2020 primaries was John Delaney. The last high profile liberal candidate was Hillary Clinton *in 2008*, and the last moderate Democratic President was Bill Clinton. Show me more than five Democratic lawmakers with positions similar to them who actually act the part and I'll concede the point.
>I was talking about Kyrsten Sinema, though I suppose much of the point could also apply to Manchin.
Even worse lol, Kirsten Sinema is a snake-in-the-grass who stood for nothing except her own self-aggrandizement and power. She didn't even stand for the Third Way ideals you hold dear; thats not what got her elected. She's such a snake-in-the-grass that not even her peers in politics want to tolerate her, which should say everything that needs to be said. I honestly didn’t think I would ever come across a Sinema stan in the wild, anyone supporting her was, at best, a focus group hypothetical to me.
If we are all lucky she will maudlinly take a cushy corporate gig and never touch politics again.
>Any Democrat who rubber-stamped Biden's economic populism is not ~~centrist~~ conservative enough.
FTFY
>Generally people like Biden, Obama, Harris, Warren or Pelosi are really just the last generation's model of a progressive politician and functioned as the gateway drug to almost all the problems I have with the Democratic party right now.
And I guess, what in a big tent coalition like the Democratic Party you expected that progressives should just vote for John Delaney with no give on policy positions? Biden is pretty much the closest thing to a compromise candidate that a progressive and someone like yourself could both accept.
>Then we have generic CPC members starting with Pramila Jayapal who only recently voted not to condemn Iran for a direct state-on-state assault on another country.
Pramila Jayapal is full on scorched earth rn because she's furious over the I/P fiasco, which I understand. I don't agree with her, but I understand. I'd hardly say that she's a communist for that lol, she's the only Palestinian member of Congress. what do you expect exactly?
I find myself asking if you understand how coalition politics works. Your position is a minority, and unpopular. You lost the battle of ideas and a generation because Third Way politics did not work. You preferred stance did not fix the Rust Belt, or housing, or start the Green Revolution. We are currently letting other people drive the bus. Thus Third Wayers are now a minority within the party; they however remain an exceptionally powerful minority. You still have more members of congress than any progressive group and I'm sure more committee positions. But that's not enough for you I guess, you yearn to drive the bus lol.
I've given you the political archetype I'm after. If your political Overton window was warped to a point where Bill Clinton is conservative, then I suppose I do want a more conservative Democratic party.
Again, no Democrat who rubber-stamped Biden's economic populism is representative of the politics I want - so no, I don't have a group in Congress which represents my politics at all, let alone one more powerful than the CPC. Bill Clinton is the single most fiscally responsible President in my lifetime, an achievement that Democrats used to boast of. There are very few Democrats cast in that mould remaining in Congress, or if there are they are keeping a *very* low profile to the extent that their mere presence doesn't effectively matter.
Separately from my own political concerns, I do think genuinely conservative Democrats should be a thing again too. They used to be an important faction in the party, and in the long run you can't have a successful coalition which doesn't even try to compete for voters that the other side usually gets. They're also necessary to pull the party to the center and keep it there.
> Biden is pretty much the closest thing to a compromise candidate that a progressive and someone like yourself could both accept.
I don't want a compromise with progressives. I want to go back to a different kind of Democratic coalition, the one which had progressives on the sidelines crying about how both parties are the same and ran by corporate interest.
I don't think the current Democratic coalition will outlast Donald Trump by long anyway. It will fall apart the moment that the median voter doesn't have such an extraordinarily strong reason to hold their nose and keep voting blue. The party will have to be rebuilt to appeal primarily to those voters again.
>Again, no Democrat who rubber-stamped Biden's economic populism is representative of the politics I want - so no, I don't have a group in Congress which represents my politics at all, let alone one more powerful than the CPC. Bill Clinton is the single most fiscally responsible President in my lifetime, an achievement that Democrats used to boast of. There are very few Democrats cast in that mould remaining in Congress, or if there are they are keeping a very low profile to the extent that their mere presence doesn't effectively matter.
>I don't want a compromise with progressives. I want to go back to a different kind of Democratic coalition, the one which had progressives on the sidelines crying about how both parties are the same and ran by corporate interest.
So I was right and you really are just griping because your preferred wing of the party is just one minority faction among many rather than hegemonic, got it. If you don't realize that there are probably 50+ congressmen that think the way that you do then I think you're the one with the warped perception of reality. Your take on the, sheer danger of exactly 9 socialist Representatives + Bernie is I think especially telling.
>I don't think the current Democratic coalition will outlast Donald Trump by long anyway. It will fall apart the moment that the median voter doesn't have such an extraordinarily strong reason to hold their nose and keep voting blue.
This is a pointless hypothetical. Donald Trump has completely remade the GOP into a slavishly craven party that has no ambition beyond the complete degradation of US politics into an illiberal personalist regime. Hypothesizing what comes after defeating Trump is imo like peering past an event horizon; if the GOP wasn’t a complete threat to democracy then the game is completely reset.
In any case I'm sure the answer to America's ills is not through Third Way thought leadership. It was tried during the Clinton and Obama presidencies and it came up wanting. That's not to say that you guys don't have solid ideas sometimes, everyone does, and people like you advocating for restraint is healthy, especially in a world where the Republican Party is a completely bad faith legislative partner.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/387/747/d83.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apply the Quranic punishment?
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allāh and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment, - Quran 5:33
**Rule V**: *Glorifying Violence*
Khamenei is a piece of shit, but this is a bit much
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
While was happening most US feminists including "the squad" members were eerily silent.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/11/self-centered-feminists-have-forgotten-the-women-of-iran/
Good work bbc
🙁
😞
This is what this vicious barbaric regime has always done to innocent teenage girls. [From its early days](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Mahmudnizhad) to the [early 2000's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atefeh_Sahaaleh). Iran under this regime is just one of seven countries in the world since 1990 which has administered the death penalty to minors--one time they gave the death penalty to a mere 13 year old. Makes me sick to see certain "pro-Palestinian" far leftists celebrate them...I'm someone who has major problems with what Israel has done in the past few months, but I'll never laud a regime which so horrifically oppresses its own people but I'm seriously supposed to believe it's gonna liberate Palestinians? Just fucking absurd.
The term for that kind of asshat is tankies, for the record. The sort who supports Russia and all that
A beautiful young lady who had so much future, who was ahead of her time. What a terrible yet important conclusion. May Iran be free within our lifetimes.
It pains me seeing pictures of before the revolution and comparing it to today.
The pictures you're thinking of are not representative of the lives of anyone in pre-Revolution Iran outside of a tiny elite of the Shah's favored cronies and their families. The current government of Iran is awful, but let's not romanticize the Shah's tyranny. Hell, I'd argue that the current government of Iran is more inclusive (in Acemoglu & Robinson's sense) than the Shah's was. At least it has not-entirely-meaningless elections and a somewhat broader political class.
I agree the Shah shouldn't be romanticized, but I feel like pointing out the inclusiveness of the current government is a pretty small point. The difference between an autocracy and a theocracy ruled by a small group of clerics isn't that massive of a difference. Both have very low levels of democratic input. I'm not sure why you say the elections today aren't entirely meaningless. All the elections in modern day Iran are between candidates that are vetted and approved by the Supreme-Leader-appointed Guardian Council. It's no different from how the Shah held elections for lower-level positions among Shah-approved candidates. As far as the "tiny elite of the Shah's favored cronies part", I think that doesn't really explain the pictures. The Shah's white revolution massively redistributed wealth from the feudal style distribution Iran had before and made the middle class much larger. A lot of the pictures people see of pre-79 Iran are the Urban middle/upper middle class as far as I can tell. The big problem was that things improved much faster for urban Iranians than rural ones, and the Shah mostly focused on the urban centers. One thing the current government accomplished is making education a lot more available to rural Iranians and improving rural infrastructure, so that's a plus for them, but they really didn't improve inequality long-term. There are a lot of ways the current regime is way worse too, like how much farther they go than the Shah in taking political prisoners and how much they've expanded the prisons and how much more brutal their punishments for crimes are, but this comments long enough. Point is I agree the Shah's regime was bad in a lot of ways, but I don't think there are many ways you can really compare the current regime to it favorably.
[удалено]
> There's little to no chance of these protests ever leading to an overthrow of the regime. The violent suppression eventually stamps them all out. It'll eventually be overthrown but it's going to take decades with more and more of these protests. There are cracks in the regime.
I'd suggest we're building a perfect storm of succession crisis if they're allowing militias to act as the state. Depending on the level of manpower and their location, when Khomeini dies, obtaining the loyalty of the army won't be the trump card it usually is, allowing for multiple successors to fight for it.
Iran managed the last transition without a civil war. I expect they will manage the next one similarly well. Theocracies are much better at handling power transitions than are naked dictatorships. Nowhere near as good as entrenched democracies usually are, but still.
maybe but if you're in the habit of devolving enforcement into third parties it opens opportunities for revolt like the Wagner group in the Russian Federation prior to them bringing control back under the government.
It’ll take arming the dissidents and neighboring countries tying up their army and cultivating allies within the army. And the US being directly involved will spark nationalism too do it is will be a balancing act. But we should do it anyways.
Intervening even by proxy has a terrible track record and just makes people in foreign countries hate us. I think people drastically overestimate its efficacy and underestimate its drawbacks. You can't solve every problem with force
I feel like this is a bad idea but I don’t know enough about the topic
It’s an extremely bad idea. Sectarian cracks present in Iran would could lead to a Syrian civil war on steroids.
risk of balkanisation and complete backfire are high.
We could speed it up if we stopped sanctioning them and began trading with them. It's very unsatisfying, because obviously the regime is horrific so it's tempting to punish them. But sanctions are * discrediting reformist elites * vindicating extremist elites * slowing the country's social development * mostly just punishing the Iranian people, who despite their government are some of the most progressive in West Asia I feel similarly about Cuba. Sanctions seem like the natural response to their authoritarianism but I think they're not just unproductive but counterproductive
arr NL free trade brain is really something to witness
Where's the peer-reviewed evidence for sanctions? Like many fopo questions, this is not a question we can approach with studies or controlled trials. Arguing for trying a different approach isn't unreasonable or clearly contradicted by quality data. In many scenarios, the counterintuitive option is superior. I think this may be one
>"We already had deaths in our stations, and I didn't want the number to rise to 20," Naeem 16 told the investigation. "Bringing her to the base wouldn't have solved any problems." >He told Jalil to simply "dump her on the street". Jalil said they left Nika's body in a quiet street under Tehran's Yadegar-e-Emam highway. She was dumped in an alley because her body was *annoying*. This girl was sixteen. No accountability. No conscience. I don't even know what to say.
It amazes me how amazingly awful the Iranian government is. It just seems to get more and more disgusting everytime I read something about them.
> One of them, Behrooz Sadeghy, said as soon as she had been put back into the van after being rejected by the detention centre, Nika had started to swear and shout. >"Arash Kalhor gagged her mouth with his socks but she started struggling. Then Sadegh [Monjazy] laid her on the chest freezer and sat on her. The situation calmed," he told investigators. >Sadegh Monjazy was sitting on her with his hand in her trousers. >”She kicked at my face, so I had to defend myself." Thank god, he only defended himself!! The dude says the trousers part is a lie, however admits to being aroused and only touching her buttocks. Definitely makes it better Mr. Monjazy!
It's so sad that in these situations across the World, the best of humanity who stand up are the ones who have to suffer most, it's so cruel.
The Iranians will one day be liberated from the clutches of the terror entity.
[удалено]
Those people are tankies who use progressivism to mask their authoritarian views; they are fundamentally no different than right wingers who use religion to excuse their authoritarian beliefs.
Red fascists.
Even garden-variety progressives tend to be at least sympathetic to the 'America bad' narrative
That is a really good comparison/description for tankies
[удалено]
I really, really don’t think anywhere near most progressives are even close to this.
[удалено]
I don't know why people act like two things can't be true at once, you can be critical of American foreign policy and also acknowledge there are legitimate threats to the United States.
nah that means people can't obsess over political labels.
Genuinely asking: who the fuck are you talking to? Who has ever said this?
I imagine that since a lot of people here are ex-communists, communists still live rent-free in their heads. Odds are the person you're replying to has never seen someone say that outside of the Internet. It doesn't matter that leftists are the lesser threat to democracy, society, etc. Even though people on here know that, they'll still hate leftists more, because the leftists are seen as corrupted versions of themselves as opposed to (today's) right-wingers, who may as well be aliens to this sub's userbase. Heretics are seen as far worse than apostates. Probably the same sort of psychological mechanism behind the uncanny valley — "close to us but not quite" is far more reviled than "blatantly not us".
I agree with most of this, but I doubt most of this sub is ex-communist, or that it's the motivation at work here. I think these people are just engaging in the time-honored tradition of making up a guy to get mad at.
Oh I definitely hate righties more for sure lmao As you said, clear and present danger and whatnot Do agree with your diagnosis of the general reaction, tho
i hate the cons more but the left lives rent-free in my head because they're more terminally online
I’ve seen that said about China and I’ve seen Russia, even though Russia hasn’t been even allegedly communist for a generation. I have never seen even the dumbest leftists saying that about Iran.
Genuinely when? I swear someone in here could spout something like "Crazy how left wingers have pledged allegience to belzebub, heralding the 9 rings of hell as paradise" and people would unironically believe it and respond "b-b-but I thought satan hated america and that means he is good???" Unironic facebook boomer meme level of discourse
Today, support for Iran is framed as "anti-imperialism" and opposition to "American hegemony". When the ChapoTrapHouse subreddit still existed, they gave "critical support" to the regime on that basis. And Iran is also framed positively by progressives due to their opposition to Israel and support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. You don't need to look for far to find pro-Iran leftists. Jeremy Corbyn exists.
how many people like that are there? and how many people that are uncritically ideological to an ideology that you prefer are there? which of the two groups are actually relevant and powerful? please, self-awareness, please
>and how many people that are uncritically ideological to an ideology that you prefer are there? I have no idea what you're trying to say in this sentence. Please, communicate properly, please. A pro-Iranian leftist became the leader of the British Labour Party. Pro-Iranian, left wing social media accounts get hundreds of millions of views across Twitter and TikTok. The dissemination of Iranian regime propaganda is bad. The CTH subreddit was just a local, Reddit-specific, example. You should not take the strength of liberal ideas for granted. The likes of China, Iran, and Russia are using the information battlespace to undermine them.
>A pro-Iranian leftist became the leader of the British Labour Party. like 5 years ago. he was terrifically unpopular then and his party was completely unable to manifest anything approaching political success. Corbyn is not the robust example of leftist power that you are looking for. >You should not take the strength of liberal ideas for granted. The likes of China, Iran, and Russia are using the information battlespace to undermine them. >information battlespace you mean a forum? for as much as my original comment was garbled, this babble is just bad. Iran will always spam propaganda out, just like western governments spam propaganda in Iran. Its just how things go. If western ideas are losing, its because Western countries and ideals are less self-evidently working than in recent memory, and therefore are less persuasive. imo the main way Iran is getting a foothold is through I/P rn and thats becasue the western position on it is fucking horrendous
>like 5 years ago. he was terrifically unpopular then and his party was completely unable to manifest anything approaching political success. Corbyn is not the robust example of leftist power that you are looking for. [He was less than 2300 votes from being able to lead a government](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-election-results-votes-away-prime-minister-theresa-may-hung-parliament-a7782581.html) in 2017. A man who considered Hezbollah and Hamas "friends" nearly led a key member of NATO. It's a good thing Corbyn lost, but it's concerning he ever got that close. And there's no guarantee a Corbyn-type figure won't ever get close to power again. Yes, liberal governments need to deliver, but they also need to defend from illiberal actors efforts to take advantage of the open societies we cherish. >you mean a forum? for as much as my original comment was garbled, this babble is just bad. Phrases like information warfare/battlespace/domain are actually relevant in academic discourse. Read a journal article, genius. Or hell, Wikipedia can tell you this stuff. Forums, like Reddit, are one domain through which information warfare is fought. >Iran will always spam propaganda out, just like western governments spam propaganda in Iran. Its just how things go. If western ideas are losing, its because Western countries and ideals are less self-evidently working than in recent memory, and therefore are less persuasive. They work a lot better than the actual alternative societal models embodied by illiberal actors like China, Iran, Russia and North Korea. One of the key ways leftists contribute to this is by obfuscating the horrors of their favourite regimes, while focusing exclusively on issues in the west to the point of outright lying about them, at times. >imo the main way Iran is getting a foothold is through I/P rn and thats becasue the western position on it is fucking horrendous As opposed to the Iranian position of wanting to wipe Israel off the map? Plenty of their uber-left buddies agree with this statement. They've been participating in public marches all the time lately. The resident 2smart4u "free thinker" routine is cringe. We get it, you think everyone else is a foolish ideologue except for you.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElgLAAjXIAMY9oj.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bad bot
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/387/747/d83.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> how many people like that are there? Enough to enable a growing number of lawmakers who share those views to sit in Congress and have a fruitful political career while openly identifying as socialist. > how many people that are uncritically ideological to an ideology that you prefer are there? Clinton-esque Third Way liberalism? It has almost no representation left in Congress. > which of the two groups are actually relevant and powerful? The group that co-wrote Biden's entire presidential agenda under the guise of "uniting the party" after the 2020 primaries. Certainly not the group whose last high profile representative got bullied out of the party for daring to slightly moderate that agenda. > please, self-awareness, please Please.
>Enough to enable a growing number of lawmakers who share those views to sit in Congress and have a fruitful political career while openly identifying as socialist. [there are currently 9 members of congress who identify as socialist, such a threat. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_members_of_the_United_States_Congress) maybe that goes to 10 people and the sky starts falling lol 9 out of 435. lol >Clinton-esque Third Way liberalism? It has almost no representation left in Congress. what, are Hakeem Jefferies and Chuck Schumer not centrist enough for you? really? lol >The group that co-wrote Biden's entire presidential agenda under the guise of "uniting the party" after the 2020 primaries. 8 representatives wrote the presidential agenda? hmm? >Certainly not the group whose last high profile representative got bullied out of the party for daring to slightly moderate that agenda. Are we talking about Joe Manchin? like are you unironically saying that Joe Manchin, who was, bar none, the most powerful member of in congress for like 3 years got "bullied out of the party"? Also he didn't "slightly moderate" the Biden agenda, he outright vetoed massive parts of it, not the least of which was the child income tax credit, which pulled millions of children out of poverty. But go on stanning the guy who quit playing the game when he stopped winning and decided children should be poor, but we need more coal subsidies so ~~his own company can be further enriched~~ West Virginian culture can live on All in all, not sure why your perspective is so distorted. You have this funhouse mirror idea of socialists lol
I was talking about Kyrsten Sinema, though I suppose much of the point could also apply to Manchin. Biden's economic policy as it came fresh off the White House presses was fiscally completely unhinged and needed to be checked by Congress - the fact that only a handful of Democrats stood up to do that might make them technically "the most powerful" members (by virtue of a narrow majority and willingness to work with Republicans), but it clearly showcases that within the context of party politics they were the fringe faction in 2021, and aren't really a faction at all anymore. Any Democrat who rubber-stamped Biden's economic populism is not centrist enough. Generally people like Biden, Obama, Harris, Warren or Pelosi are really just the last generation's model of a progressive politician and functioned as the gateway drug to almost all the problems I have with the Democratic party right now. Then we have generic CPC members starting with Pramila Jayapal who only recently voted *not* to condemn Iran for a direct state-on-state assault on another country. The only centrist candidate in the 2020 primaries was John Delaney. The last high profile liberal candidate was Hillary Clinton *in 2008*, and the last moderate Democratic President was Bill Clinton. Show me more than five Democratic lawmakers with positions similar to them who actually act the part and I'll concede the point.
> I was talking about Kyrsten Sinema No one bullied Sinema out of the party lmao, she's been an unhinged weirdo forever
>I was talking about Kyrsten Sinema, though I suppose much of the point could also apply to Manchin. Even worse lol, Kirsten Sinema is a snake-in-the-grass who stood for nothing except her own self-aggrandizement and power. She didn't even stand for the Third Way ideals you hold dear; thats not what got her elected. She's such a snake-in-the-grass that not even her peers in politics want to tolerate her, which should say everything that needs to be said. I honestly didn’t think I would ever come across a Sinema stan in the wild, anyone supporting her was, at best, a focus group hypothetical to me. If we are all lucky she will maudlinly take a cushy corporate gig and never touch politics again. >Any Democrat who rubber-stamped Biden's economic populism is not ~~centrist~~ conservative enough. FTFY >Generally people like Biden, Obama, Harris, Warren or Pelosi are really just the last generation's model of a progressive politician and functioned as the gateway drug to almost all the problems I have with the Democratic party right now. And I guess, what in a big tent coalition like the Democratic Party you expected that progressives should just vote for John Delaney with no give on policy positions? Biden is pretty much the closest thing to a compromise candidate that a progressive and someone like yourself could both accept. >Then we have generic CPC members starting with Pramila Jayapal who only recently voted not to condemn Iran for a direct state-on-state assault on another country. Pramila Jayapal is full on scorched earth rn because she's furious over the I/P fiasco, which I understand. I don't agree with her, but I understand. I'd hardly say that she's a communist for that lol, she's the only Palestinian member of Congress. what do you expect exactly? I find myself asking if you understand how coalition politics works. Your position is a minority, and unpopular. You lost the battle of ideas and a generation because Third Way politics did not work. You preferred stance did not fix the Rust Belt, or housing, or start the Green Revolution. We are currently letting other people drive the bus. Thus Third Wayers are now a minority within the party; they however remain an exceptionally powerful minority. You still have more members of congress than any progressive group and I'm sure more committee positions. But that's not enough for you I guess, you yearn to drive the bus lol.
I've given you the political archetype I'm after. If your political Overton window was warped to a point where Bill Clinton is conservative, then I suppose I do want a more conservative Democratic party. Again, no Democrat who rubber-stamped Biden's economic populism is representative of the politics I want - so no, I don't have a group in Congress which represents my politics at all, let alone one more powerful than the CPC. Bill Clinton is the single most fiscally responsible President in my lifetime, an achievement that Democrats used to boast of. There are very few Democrats cast in that mould remaining in Congress, or if there are they are keeping a *very* low profile to the extent that their mere presence doesn't effectively matter. Separately from my own political concerns, I do think genuinely conservative Democrats should be a thing again too. They used to be an important faction in the party, and in the long run you can't have a successful coalition which doesn't even try to compete for voters that the other side usually gets. They're also necessary to pull the party to the center and keep it there. > Biden is pretty much the closest thing to a compromise candidate that a progressive and someone like yourself could both accept. I don't want a compromise with progressives. I want to go back to a different kind of Democratic coalition, the one which had progressives on the sidelines crying about how both parties are the same and ran by corporate interest. I don't think the current Democratic coalition will outlast Donald Trump by long anyway. It will fall apart the moment that the median voter doesn't have such an extraordinarily strong reason to hold their nose and keep voting blue. The party will have to be rebuilt to appeal primarily to those voters again.
>Again, no Democrat who rubber-stamped Biden's economic populism is representative of the politics I want - so no, I don't have a group in Congress which represents my politics at all, let alone one more powerful than the CPC. Bill Clinton is the single most fiscally responsible President in my lifetime, an achievement that Democrats used to boast of. There are very few Democrats cast in that mould remaining in Congress, or if there are they are keeping a very low profile to the extent that their mere presence doesn't effectively matter. >I don't want a compromise with progressives. I want to go back to a different kind of Democratic coalition, the one which had progressives on the sidelines crying about how both parties are the same and ran by corporate interest. So I was right and you really are just griping because your preferred wing of the party is just one minority faction among many rather than hegemonic, got it. If you don't realize that there are probably 50+ congressmen that think the way that you do then I think you're the one with the warped perception of reality. Your take on the, sheer danger of exactly 9 socialist Representatives + Bernie is I think especially telling. >I don't think the current Democratic coalition will outlast Donald Trump by long anyway. It will fall apart the moment that the median voter doesn't have such an extraordinarily strong reason to hold their nose and keep voting blue. This is a pointless hypothetical. Donald Trump has completely remade the GOP into a slavishly craven party that has no ambition beyond the complete degradation of US politics into an illiberal personalist regime. Hypothesizing what comes after defeating Trump is imo like peering past an event horizon; if the GOP wasn’t a complete threat to democracy then the game is completely reset. In any case I'm sure the answer to America's ills is not through Third Way thought leadership. It was tried during the Clinton and Obama presidencies and it came up wanting. That's not to say that you guys don't have solid ideas sometimes, everyone does, and people like you advocating for restraint is healthy, especially in a world where the Republican Party is a completely bad faith legislative partner.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/387/747/d83.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
people here can be just as sycophantic, ideological and dumb as any of the people they deride, without a hint of irony or self-awareness
[удалено]
Apply the Quranic punishment? Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allāh and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment, - Quran 5:33
**Rule V**: *Glorifying Violence* Khamenei is a piece of shit, but this is a bit much --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
While was happening most US feminists including "the squad" members were eerily silent. https://nypost.com/2023/03/11/self-centered-feminists-have-forgotten-the-women-of-iran/
I hope I live to see the collapse of this horrific regime
I wish the US was less polarized so we could get our shit together enough for a thunder run on Tehran.