Even though it’s against main lemmy instances rules
https://lemmy.world/post/15596791 is full of people celebrating death
How is this possible? Even mods laughing at it
Even though it’s against main lemmy instances rules
https://lemmy.world/post/15596791 is full of people celebrating death
How is this possible? Even mods laughing at it
deleted by creator
I understand what an analogy is. But you know (and I know) that we don't make analogies at random. There's a specific reason you chose Bin Laden and Hitler to make the analogy. Even comparing Bin Laden and Hitler is dishonest and lacks appropriate context.
I'd say Raisi's death celebration is more akin to celebrating the death of someone like Omar Torrijos (Panama), and I'm not speaking of similarity of death itself or the conditons that created the death. I'm talking about their respective policies.
Death happens everyday and you chose to make the specific comparisons you did. It wasn't an accident, no one forced it into your brain. You did that.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Is there anything you're capable of absorbing?
deleted by creator
Again, I know what an analogy is. We already established that. So, that means I do know Hitler is not just a nom de plum or alias for Raisi, or vice versa.
It's just not a good analogy. Look at the names I wrote and think about it for a second.
Why do I think comparing Hitler to Bin Laden is not a good comparison? Why do I believe comparing General Torrijos to Raisi is a good comparison?
Then, back to you. "[Celebrating] the death of horrific people is not necessarily a bad thing." You didn't even clarify what made Raisi a horrific person comparable to Hitler. You sound like everyone else in that Reddit-esque circlejerk.
If you read closely, you can see I don't really mind the act of celebration itself. My problem is that there is no acceptable reason to compare Raisi and Hitler, first of all; and, secondly, the people celebrating don't even know who Raisi is. Your comparison alone tells me you're in that group, the people who are celebrating without even knowing.
I can celebrate the deaths of Hitler, Mussolini, Kissinger, Pinochet, Reagan, and so on. That's because I actually know who they were and what they did.
deleted by creator
When you were a kid (if you ever grew out of being a kid, that is), did anyone tell you the story of the apples and oranges? Did you ever hear someone talking about comparing apples to bananas? Anything of that nature? You still can't explain why you specifically chose to compare Hitler and Bin Laden to Raisi.
Let me break it down for you slow, in hamburger American terms.
Say I want to talk about America. Should I compare America to McDonald's and apple pie? Or should I compare America to shrimp and gyros?
Fill in the blank: As American as _______.
Did you say "apple pie" or did you say "shrimp and gyros"? Why? Reflect on this in your own time.
hitler and raeisi and bin laden are so different they would make good candidates for some kind of tripartite "types of loamy soil" diagram. you're making a horrible analogy and you should feel bad
deleted by creator
you didn't even know this guy was elected, did you?
deleted by creator
and here you see the bailey of the motte and bailey strategy to defend regime change talking points. he's no longer a leader he's an "authoritarian dictator" a completely meaningless term which is only used to paint targets on the enemies of the west
you are just playing the good cop.
deleted by creator
See, and there you go acting cute about it. We all know what you're implying in this discussion of the guy dying in a fireball. Get outta here
deleted by creator
You too. While you're out there, don't go implying people who aren't cheering on an elected leader's death are opposed to reform of the system that elected them, implicitly. Especially when that leader has done more than you ever will for Palestine.
deleted by creator
Because internet commentators want to pass off their uninformed xenophobia as advocacy for democracy and the people of countries they despise and want to undermine the national interest of. For instance Ken Klippenstein referred to the Iranian President as an authoritarian dictator.
deleted by creator
I think you are lacking reading comprehension since he clearly criticized this terrible analogy. Putting Raisi next to Hitler regarding celebrating death? Come on, don't minimize who Hitler was.
deleted by creator
if everyone in a conversation takes your statement a certain way that you didn't mean then you need to accept that you did a shit job at communicating
deleted by creator
Why are you incapable of actually arguing about these points? Can you do anything other than this metatextual shit about how people are misreading you? How about actually discuss Iran or geopolitics?
deleted by creator
Because you started a discussion with other people and made unfounded claims, you should anticipate a response. You shouldn't just misapply made up debate rules to act smug without backing up anything you said. This is assuming you're interested in exchanging information with other people and learning. 🤠
deleted by creator
Sorry am I making up that you compared the Iranian President to Bin Laden AND Hitler, and said his death should be celebrated? Was that a dream? Are we going into conniptions?
deleted by creator
In what way? I am trying to start a discussion both about why you believe this man's death should be celebrated, the premises of what you think about the government in iran, and what the reality of a collapsing state looks like, what kind of world we would really live in if mccain's dream of nuking iran were realized, the intersection of the president's death with geopolitics, the western instrumentalization of orgs like HRW to go soft on israel and hard on targets we want to exploit & enclose or push out of competition, regional politics
you are free to step out and come back later but it's clear you don't want to talk about the differences between this guy, bin laden, and hitler. it's actually far more interesting than "bad man die is good. me very smart no explain"
Problem is they are not analogous.
deleted by creator
Just admit you make awful comparisons and fail to make analogies work.
Hitler, for one, had a specific fascist ideology comparable to Mussolini. I'd feel comfortable comparing the two. Not only based on their alliance and ideology alone, but also their actions taken.
When we compare people to Hitler, we generally make the assumption that we are talking about genocide, fascism, and an extreme passion for exterminating and villifying the "other" (whether that be Jews or Muslims or Slavs or something else). I wouldn't even make a comparison between Hitler and Netanyahu if I had to be professional and make time for an appropriate comparison.
On to Bin Laden, now. Why isn't he similar to Hitler? Back in the day, the US had a strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia. Backing the dollar with gold wasn't the best plan for us, we didn't gain a strong advantage doing so. Saudi Arabia was happy to help us with new US policy abroad. We went above and beyond to treat Saudi monarchs to the best life available, all at our expense. We even ignored the Saudis backing of people like Bin Laden back when we first knew of his type, all the way in the 1970s. We even used his allies and people with the Mujahideen that fought against the Soviets in the 1980s. Long story short, we had a blowback incident. 9/11 came around to hit us, likely with Saudis allowing it to happen while US intelligence was too incompetent or bogged down to act effectively (or maybe we knew and couldn't or wouldn't do anything). We went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan - not Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was a failure the US contributed to actively for about 20 years, not including the interference from years prior. The Taliban is still governing Afghanistan today in fact. It wasn't anything like Hitler, except for the brutal anti-Communism. It certainly wasn't like Raisi either, considering that Iran and Afghanistan's Taliban aren't on the best terms.
I would compare Raisi to General Torrijos. Why is that? Because they were both nationalists, both concerned with sovereignty and not bending the will of their country to the US, yet each of them were not inherently accepting of either far-right extemist ideology or Communism (or other explictly left-wing political movements or ideologies). In spite of ideological differences, they both had a desire to stay neutral, choose key allies, and were rather accepting of liberation movements. People didn't really celebrate the death of Torrijos, at least in Panama. I wouldn't say people were exceptionally happy in Iran about the death of Raisi either. They weren't good leaders per se, but they stood on principles. I don't care for either figure myself, but I recognize who they were and what they fought for as humans.