Iran has banned a weightlifter from sports for life and dissolved a sports committee after the athlete greeted an Israeli counterpart on a podium.

Mostafa Rajaei, a veteran weightlifter, finished second in his category in the 2023 World Master Weightlifting Championships in Poland and stood on a podium with an Iranian flag wrapped around him on Saturday.

On anther step of the podium stood Maksim Svirsky from Israel, who finished third.

The two athletes shook hands and took a picture together, which led to the Iran Weightlifting Federation banning Rajaei from all sports for life due to what it called an “unforgivable” transgression.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’ve gotta be pretty insecure to have a complete breakdown over a minor issue. Really makes Irans government appear weak.

      • s0ykaf [he/him]
        cake
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        politics for liberals are just a big reality show

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hold up, assigning traits to a government made up by people (a group of people) is weird, but assigning traits to a different group of people isn't? I don't really disagree, but you can't agree with the comment above you and agree with your comment also.

          • s0ykaf [he/him]
            cake
            ·
            1 year ago

            you can't agree with the comment above you and agree with your comment also.

            of course i can; if i couldn't, i wouldn't, but i did it, which is proof that i can do it

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can't while being a reasonable, logically consistent person. You can if you argue in bad faith, which I expect but usually people don't take pride in that.

              • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                ·
                1 year ago

                Did he assign a trait to liberals? Because if not, there's no inconsistency.

                Then a follow up question: is there a difference between 'liberals' as a group (i.e. not liberalism) and a government (i.e. an institution)? If so, there may be no inconsistency.

                What I mean is, when people talk about governments it's often as a non-human legal person, which can act, omit, sue, and be sued, but which does not have the full range of human traits, like insincerity. Whereas a group that does not have legal personality and only describes a collection of humans, albeit in the abstract, like 'liberals', can demonstrate a fuller range of human traits.

                Then, as an experiment, switch the terms and see if it has the same ring to it:

                politics for [governments] are just a big reality show

                Does this anthropomorphise 'governments' in the same way as attributing human emotions to them?

                I don't necessarily have answers to these questions but it seems that you can't be calling someone out for bad faith unless you can strongly argue yes, no, yes, to the above questions.

                • s0ykaf [he/him]
                  cake
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  i admire the willingness to spell it out lol but that other guy has big reddit debatebro energy and i don't think it can go anywhere

                  • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It's often the way. Hopefully someone else reading will see the flaw in forever calling an alternative viewpoint 'bad faith' because it's presented with humour.

                • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Did he assign a trait to liberals? Because if not, there's no inconsistency.

                  Let's see...

                  politics for liberals are just a big reality show

                  It sure seems like it. Liberals treat politics as a reality TV show seems to be a trait described.

                  Then a follow up question: is there a difference between 'liberals' as a group (i.e. not liberalism) and a government (i.e. an institution)? If so, there may be no inconsistency.

                  Sure, there is a difference. They're both institutions though. They can both be assigned traits in perfectly valid reasonable ways.

                  I don't necessarily have answers to these questions but it seems that you can't be calling someone out for bad faith unless you can strongly argue yes, no, yes, to the above questions.

                  I can strongly answer that "anthropomorphising" things made of anthropomorphic beings is perfectly reasonable. Giving traits to a building can be silly, but sometimes still useful literarily. Using human characteristics to describe humans is totally normal, useful, and reasonable.

          • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, yeah it's obvious, but when people say that X company or country looks weak/happy/pissed, they are refering to the board of directors or congress that are taking the decisions, naming the country instead of the whole sentence is easier.

            You can still find it weird ofc, I was just trying to explain why people do it.

                • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  This is the problem people have with Hexbear specifically. You can almost never have a normal conversation with them. The other day someone (who happened to be from hexbear, but I didn't realize it at the time of posting) posted an article and said it said something totally different than the actual contents. I pointed out that they were wrong, and they then went through my entire comment history to pick things out and misrepresented them to make themselves feel better I guess. It was weird, but it's similar to at least half of my interactions with hexbear users.

                  Thank you for calling them out.

                  • Catradora_Stalinism [she/her, comrade/them]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That is entirely different, you consistently would ignore every time I tore apart your argument. You forget I myself had a response with several sources, something which you did not during any part. Also you definitely knew it was hexbear, you were in our news mega for crying out loud! Your original reply was literally removed for how immediately hostile it was. You are misrepresenting the this entirely!

                    Another point: your comment history is public, so is mine! Take a look if you want. I have nothing to hide. In fact in my Lemmygrad account @American_Communist22@lemmygrad.ml I had a similar occurrence where I was wrong with what I said, but someone (who was not hostile, unlike you) corrected me. I then proceded to argue a counterargument, one with similar lack of hostility, and then conceded to their point, they were correct and I was wrong. I then changed the post to match that.

                    You're wording specifically implies that I was being some deranged nutjob and you were the "brave one who stood up to the hexbear horde". I only became rude (and not nearly as rude as the usual hexbear treatment) after you chose to do the same. Then you proceeded to not interact with the main points until I chose to disengage from such a fruitless argument.

                  • Staines [they/them]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    That's the second person from hexbear that you didn't realise at the time of posting. You're going to have to get better at spotting us if we're so awful.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well governments are made of people...

        If you're assigning human traits to the building the government is in, sure it's stupid. Recognizing the traits of the people representing the state is pretty normal though.