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
Everyone rejoiced when Bin Laden was killed also. I’m sure lots of people did when Hitler died too.
Sometimes people celebrate the death of horrific and oppressive people. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
If you think Iranian leaders are equivalent to Biden Laden and Hitler, you still have a few years (or decades) of brain development left. Please at least make an attempt to sound educated when making comparisons. This place is going to be more embarrassing than Reddit soon…
Do you just not understand the concept of an analogy?
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.
Yes, there is. To get the point across. The reason was not to make an equivalency.
The point is not Raisi = literally Hitler.
The point is celebrating the death of horrific people is not necessarily a bad thing.
…is there something you’d like to say?
Is there anything you’re capable of absorbing?
Okay, so just personal attacks then. Got it.
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.
Really no point in trying to have a conversation with helenslunch
No, the only thing we established, and now confirmed, is that you don’t understand the difference between an analogy and an equivalency.
I don’t understand why you want to waste your time tap tapping away about shit no one is talking about.
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
You are bad at understanding analogies and you should feel bad.
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
deleted by creator
@helenslunch @pressurized Yeah, there had been no “Guardian Council” nor a “Supreme Leader” like in Iran. The political structure itself in the “Weimar Republic” had been democratic.
I don’t understand the relevance.
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.
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.
No I think you are, because they were presenting my analogy as an equivalency.
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
They didn’t.
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?
I’m not. I choose not to.
Why are you trying to coerce me into talking about something other than what I choose to?
Problem is they are not analogous.
If you’d like to elaborate on how they are not analogous, please feel free.
If you want to disingenuously respond to my statement as if it was an equivalency, you can just go away.
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.
First sentence might have been fine, its the second one that probably was a “foot in the hornets nest.”
I mean the two are inseparable. One supports the other.