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.
You’ve gotta be pretty insecure to have a complete breakdown over a minor issue. Really makes Irans government appear weak.
Assigning human traits to governments is so weird lol
politics for liberals are just a big reality show
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.
of course i can; if i couldn't, i wouldn't, but i did it, which is proof that i can do it
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.
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:
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.
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
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.
Let's see...
It sure seems like it. Liberals treat politics as a reality TV show seems to be a trait described.
Sure, there is a difference. They're both institutions though. They can both be assigned traits in perfectly valid reasonable ways.
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.
They are made by people in the end
Oh wow, I did not know that.
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.
Please teach me more of your liberal ways, I'm really starting to understand how the world works now.
I really don't get the need of being so passive aggresive with someone trying to hold a conversation. Have a nice day.
If you were actually interested in a conversation you would have answered my other replies to you.
I am answering them, although those are in a different thread of comments. I have literally 5 comments from your user in my inbox and all of them have been answered.
Where are the links to hexbear users saying they are going to vote for Trump?
sent in the other comment, I couldn't bother because I had to search for them again, but since you insist.
I'm going to vote for him in multiple states
I'd expect no less from a user of such a liberal instance.
Hey now, only we are allowed to insult us
From one lib to another I thought that was high praise sorry
Sorry, I was on mobile using the Connect app and it doesn't show the user's instance, didn't realise you are from the only other lib instance
No worries. We've got to stand together during tough times like these.
Some hexbear users really hate being decent when conversing.
deleted by creator
Same energy
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
That was like a 2/10 on the “being a dick” scale
deleted by creator
No, its pretty true. It was very mild sarcasm lol
Are you okay?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Disengage both of you
deleted by creator
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.
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.
I was on all, not on your news community specifically. I don't really care where I was. When someone posts something and says it's something totally different, I'm going to call it out. I didn't respond to the other articles because they weren't relevant to your original thing being totally wrong. The aircraft carriers that other countries are building are also typically not like US (or China) carriers. They're more like US marine amphibious assault ships. They, or someone else, may call them carriers, but they aren't really in the same category. Anyway, is it OK for China and the US to have carriers and for Japan to not be allowed to for some reason?
I have nothing to hide either. I don't care that you went through my comment history, if you were to be accurate with what you found. Whatever. You have no responsibility to and I shouldn't expect better. This is my only account FYI.
The article was totally different than what you characterized it to be, and I've seen far too many people use similar tactics to spread misinformation. How am I supposed to know if it's on purpose or not, whether it was or was not. Was the purpose of it to make people fear Japan having carriers? Again, even if they do, what's the issue? I don't think they should because I think they're culture and people would be better off without it, but it's not logically consistent for me to be accepting of the US and China (and other's) having carriers but saying other nations shouldn't be allowed to.
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.
Oh she definitely knew it was hexbear, she was literally in our news mega!
I generally don't care what instance people are from. I notice hexbear after the fact often because of how bad (aka, not logical) their arguments tend to be. They're usually fallacious at best if they even defend a position, but often they just go on offense on something random because their original position was indefensible.
You're likely getting that response because Hexbear has developed it's own culture of having earnest conversations that are intended to enrich and inform the users taking part in the discussion.
The derisive, dismissive responses are a reaction to someone breaking that etiquette by grandstanding, accusing people of logical fallacies, or resorting to insults: these are things that indicate that the person isn't sincerely interested in trying to understand the person they are speaking to.
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.
Governments are made by humans so… I guess human traits carry over