AreaSIX
I’m firmly against defederating anyone. It’s sad that so many just want to remove voices they don’t like from a public forum. I believe that we should avoid defederating at all costs, it should be the absolute last measure contemplated after everything else fails. I didn’t like their posts for a couple of weeks doesn’t even come close to being a good reason IMO.
I don’t even really get the criticism. The complaints are not on whether he’s a liar or not, or whether his or Trump’s policies are what you’d prefer. The complaints are about him not being able to express any of that in a comprehensible way on the day he was most prepared to do so on the national stage, on account of him being a fossil. Trump is a liar with a horrendous ideology, but he’s very much still able to sell those lies and ideas to a very receptive crowd, because he’s obviously cognitively much sharper than Biden is. He’s still able to sell the tough guy persona while Biden is unable to sell anything to anyone at the moment. And it’ll just get worse if he remains in the race.
You can hide behind whatever rule you’d like. I’ve been more civil in my replies than your remarks call for. And it’s pretty clear in my unedited comments for everyone to see. Knock yourself out with whatever rule you need to hide behind, in order to avoid having an honest look at your own beliefs and biases.
If so, then it’s just as inaccurate and ridiculous to say that Uganda, India, Algeria and Morocco have regressed in their development. What part of that do you consider controversial? Are you unwilling/unable to have a negative attitude towards the current regime, while also acknowledging that they’ve done more to develop the country than the Pahlavis ever did? There’s no contradiction at all in that in my view, those are just the facts. Iran has raised its HDI by +40% in the last 35 years, going from 0.577 in 1990 to almost 0.8 in 2018, with the international average for countries with high HDI being 0.75. Iran went from non-existent research output during the Shah’s reign to being number 15 in the World, placing 4th in Asia after India, Japan and South Korea. All of this happened within the framework of the “theocratic shitheads”, despite the existence of socially repressive laws, and not during the Shah’s time when the laws were more relaxed and all of the West supported his regime in any way possible. He was just uninterested in channeling that support into things beneficial to the people of Iran, and suffered the consequences of that by steering the country into revolution. So just comparing a picture of a woman in a miniskirt in the seventies to the mandatory hijab of today and concluding that the country has regressed in general seems like the most uncharitable and shallow analysis possible. It’s not helpful in understanding the World at all, and leads to foolish slogans like “they hate us for our freedom”, which in turn leads to disastrous decisions like the invasion of Iraq.
I don’t know why it should be so difficult to acknowledge that there are different degrees of bad, and the record suggests that the current “shitheads” are still far superior to the former. Nothing I wrote was meant to imply that the current regime doesn’t do a lot of bad stuff, there are no governments that don’t do bad stuff. To make sense of international politics at all, I think it’s essential to be able to compare different degrees of bad and grade on a curve. Just pointing and saying it’s all bad doesn’t seem like the best of ideas to me. But to each his own.