top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 177 points 4 months ago (27 children)

Backwater trash policies.

Omg men saw your HAIR! Give me a fucking break. Grow the fuck up and stop acting like children who can't control themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 4 months ago* (9 children)

    You can actually go on YouTube and search "Tehran walking tour" or something similar, and like half the women aren't wearing any head covering whatsoever...

    I don't know if there are different rules for performers, but I am a bit suspicious. Is the guardian trying to drum up consent for restarting the war? I think some skepticism is warranted.

    And before y'all downvote me to oblivion for for being a dictator loving tankie or whatever, remember that the Guardian is British corporate media...the same country where protesting genocide gets you charged as a terrorist. It's not exactly a place where the ruling class has ever given a shit about human rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    People have increasingly challenged the "modest dress" mandates over the past decades, but there used to be a "Guardian Patrol" that would try to enforce modest dress in public spaces. After Mahsa Amini's death the Guardian Patrol was shut down, and there was a massive increase in women skipping head coverings, in particular in larger cities like Tehran and Esfahan.

    However, skipping modest dress in media is a different matter. It has become laxer, but not by the same extent. The religious leadership is extra sensitive about modesty in music, so I think the context of "singing for men without head covering" is the signal here.

    I'd also mention that there will be a lot of backsliding of these hard-won victories with this war, as ultraconservatives are gaining a lot of power and legitimacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Literally, there's an incredible amount of footage from Iran where the vast majority of women aren't wearing anything of the sort. Do just high profile people get targeted?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 4 months ago

    It’s common for a lot of authoritarian places to have laws that are selectively enforced. Since the enforcement is rare many people don’t bother following them but if someone bothers someone high up for any reason then breaking the law (that tons of other people break all the time anyway) is an easy excuse for the authorities to come down like a sack of bricks with a pretext ready. Being higher profile makes it more likely that you catch the eye of someone who hates you so it can be safer being some random person too low to notice instead. Though higher profile people also have more people ready to defend them generally so if you do get on someone’s list it’s better to have people in your corner who will make noise and maybe get punishment lessened or called off.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Probably trying to make an example out of her. There has been significant public resistance to the hair covering laws in recent years and the government has made various attempts to bring women back under control. But as with all tyrannical governments, if enough people resist, they simply can't go after everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago

    It's the number one perk of being an authoritarian ruler. Your Authority is absolute and unquestionable. Meaning your hypocrisy is sanctioned and allowed. The rules are only enforced to punish the vulnerable. Whether it's Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping. The rules are flexible if not invisible until the moment you cross leadership. Then they will descend on you feigning morality.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -13 points 4 months ago (14 children)

    I agree but I wish people would act this way towards western modesty laws as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    We're not great, but we don't publicly torture women for not covering their heads...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    I'm not going to defend their bs, but let's not pretend that puritanical views on female (reproductive and otherwise) morality aren't killing people in places like the US.

    We kill women for having a uterus, not for appearance. Look at the supreme Court's garbage triggering abortion laws across the country. There is a death toll.

    We aren't exactly doing great in the west.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    My BS? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Western governments need to be shamed too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I believe the “their” there was referring to Iran’s BS, not yours

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    That is exactly what I was doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Which people? Pretty sure you'd find lots of people doing just that, mostly those who are criticizing policies like the one in the article as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    In my experience many of the most strident critics of hair coverings refuse to see the similarity to anti-nudity laws, especially nipple covering which is specific to women.

    I mean I think the downvotes speak to the fact that the average person is not willing to admit the harms that our own ideas of modesty cause.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Or they think you're using whataboutism to make it about an issue your personally care about instead of the still very real issue conveyed in the article.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child)

    I can kind of see that criticism but I think talking about our own issues and hypocrisy here has relevance here. We do very similar things in our countries and there's very little fuss about it.

    And I did acknowledge that I agree Iranian morality policing should be condemned, so it's not like I'm trying to defend them, just talk about a related issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago

    Then maybe don't make your statements "Yes... but", make them "Yes, and". It makes it less about how you think people should be worried about your issues and simply brings up a related issue as well.

    And, again, it's not like people don't care. Just like it's not that people don't care about the climate crisis, economic inequality, or health care... it's just people only have so much energy to give. And the current systems we live in do not provide room for an overabundance of sharing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 81 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Morality laws are stupid, in any country.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 28 points 4 months ago (15 children)

    Holeeee fuck. I mean I know Iranian leadership is intensely conservative and traditional, but shittttttt. Do they actually still give whippings as legal punishment?? This will be enforced and she will actually get lashes like it's 1840s Mississippi??

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    There was an Iranian football player who spoke out a while back and they basically said, "do that again and we'll kill your family."

    Their Lego shit is pretty on point but they're seriously not good dudes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Imagine being so shitty that the Iranian government are the good guys. Makes you think.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Imagine instead seeing a conflict and not rushing to pick a side.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I think it’s pretty easy to say the following actually:

    Iran fucking sucks and is ass backwards politically. However, the US is beyond wrong in this conflict and is clearly the problem. The US has it wrong and needs to stop.

    The problem is, the first part doesn’t really need to be said since we all know this shit is evil. However, so many people think calling out the US doing war crimes is some open ended support of Irans politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    That's all I'm saying. As an American, should I be doing everything in my power to stop this evil administration, or should I take a callow stance of "I support Iran" and do nothing? I think I'm seeing a lot of the latter, and it bothers me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago*

    How about I support the side that was attacked first with massive terror bombing campaigns against civilian targets that responded with missile attacks that almost entirely focused on military targets.

    Seriously. America started the war by double tapping a girls school intentionally. Almost 200 girls between 9-12 were murdered in that terrorist bombing attack.

    And I use the word intentionally as even fucking Google maps knew it was a girls school. First strike packages are the most carefully researched and selected targets in any war.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    No, they don't whip them like the Americans whipped their slaves. 74 lashes would be unsurvivable with a bull whip, a la Americana

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    I'm amazed with the way you can so confidently state such BS...

    American slave whip:

    source

    Iranian whipping footage (Graphic, NSFL): source

    They use exactly the same implement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    Weird sources. Who has killed more people through whipping?

    Edit: funny how the Iranian whipping victim was nsfw, yet you chose a sfw whipping victim from the Americans, despite them whipping hundreds of thousands of people to death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)
    1. Amnesty international and CARLI are about as reputable as sources can get.

    2. There are no stats that* answer that, from Iran or the atlantic slave trade.

    3. Unless that link is broken, that image depicts an american whip, not a whipping victim. edit: If you mean why didn't I include photos of an american slavery whipping victim, there are no photographs of slave punishment I could find that have a legible image of the whip, which is the important info here. Photography 160 years ago was not great at capturing motion.

    4. there were approximately 10 million slaves in the US, total. Although I can't find exact numbers, if we go by the reasonable estimates from clrn we can see that between 1 in 20 to 1 in 11 slaves died of the euphemistic "conditions of slavery", so it would be pretty damned impressive for the US to have whipped "hundreds of thousands" of people to death - certainly some were, and even more were simply beaten to death or chained and starved, but please stop making up bullshit about historical tragidies to further your own political narrative.

    Studies suggest an excess mortality of 15-20% due to conditions directly related to enslavement. If we apply this mortality rate to the estimated 3-4 million enslaved Africans brought to the Americas, we arrive at an estimated 450,000 to 800,000 deaths.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)
    1. It's an extremely famous image - but one that does not show the whip that was used, which was the whole point.

    2. Those are scars from someone with keloid disorder, which visually appear far more severe but given he is not dead were likely done with the same instrument as I showed above.

    If you can find a relevant image from american slavery, or a non graphic image of the whips used in iranian corporal punishment, I welcome it! I looked quite hard and could find neither. Until then, please keep in mind I'm not trying to make the point you're implying I'm trying to make.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] -3 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Photographs weren't exactly common 160 years ago, hence the difficulty.

    If you can find an image of american slavery that depicts the whips used in use, I welcome it (well kinda, I'd much prefer a non-graphic image of what's used in Iran, though I couldn't find that either). Otherwise this is the only relevant image I could find.

    (edit: spelling)

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 66 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    How'd that liberating of the Iranian people go again?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    תפשת מרובה לא תפשת

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    It looks like the us definitely bit off more than they can chew if that's what you meant and my translation is accurate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Intended it more directed at Israel than the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Could you elaborate? Despite my username, I had to look up a translation and what I got was "you don't understand a lot". That kinda reads that like pro invasion considering the dude you're responding to had some palpable sarcasm. I'm not accusing you, just letting you know my train of thought.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    We gave the Iranian regime extremely powerful leverage on the global stage and galvanized support for the regime domestically, so not great. If there was a possibility of a popular revolt happening in Iran the war definitely killed it. The introduction of a common enemy made a lot of the domestic opposition fall in line to defend their sovereignty, and the ones who didn't were successfully suppressed by the regime with fewer people willing to stand in solidarity with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 44 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Obviously terrible, but how do they end up at 74? Is there a table for number of words sung without a hijab?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    It's based on how butt hurt the men feel after a woman pretends to be a human being.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    checks

    Apparently the sharia court gave her the maximum sentence for a single act.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20180310195447/http://iranhrdc.org/english/human-rights-documents/iranian-codes/1000000351-islamic-penal-code-of-the-islamic-republic-of-iran-book-five.html#18

    Article 638- Anyone in public places and roads who openly commits a harām (sinful) act, in addition to the punishment provided for the act, shall be sentenced to two months’ imprisonment or up to 74 lashes; and if they commit an act that is not punishable but violates public prudency, they shall only be sentenced to ten days to two months’ imprisonment or up to 74 lashes.

    Note- Women, who appear in public places and roads without wearing an Islamic hijab, shall be sentenced to ten days to two months’ imprisonment or a fine of fifty thousand to five hundred Rials.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I am more curious now, lying is haram too but the regime doesn't punish that with 74 lashes.

    I guess it's just an excuse to segregate and oppress at the end of the day but still, feels like some religious people should debate this sentencing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 94 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (32 children)

    A nice little reminder that, even with everything else, Iran is still a shit hole.

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 4 months ago (24 children)

    That's right. Trump shouldn't have started a war with Iran, but it's still a shithole country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago (19 children)

    Imagine being such a shit hole that the world is rooting for Iran.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago* (18 children)

    This mentality exhausts me. If people can stop treating geopolitics like a fucking sports match that would be great. We don't have to root for anyone in a given conflict. We can acknowledge both sides are bad and not matter the outcome it will be bad for common people.

    If we ever are able to do this we might actually have some progress. But until then we continue to worship inherently evil states

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 4 months ago (17 children)

    Imagine being so morally bankrupt, you can't pick a side. It's called critical support. I don't support the actions of the Iranian state, but I support them in their defensive war against the global hegemon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    Funny how your type will double down on how there's no moral choice between democrats and Republicans

    Yet somehow you can find the "moral" choice between a theocratic dictatorship (also capitalist btw) and an imperial nation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    A) nobody mentioned any political party affiliation; if you want to fight people you've made up in your head, I recommend some grippy socks.

    B) nobody has to support Iran. People support peace, which by definition means opposing the US in this conflict. Seeing as how this conflict literally has 2 sides, that definitionally means "supporting Iran." If anything, YOU'RE the one boiling a desire for peace and stability down to "team sports."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (4 children)

    a) it's an example to illustrate a point. You only have to be a very moderate lemmy user to know what I'm talking about.

    b) The first sentence was correct. The rest you made up, but that's okay you are right for the most part. Unfortunately some people don't just mean supporting Iran in terms of the conflict with the US/Israel. If you look at the comment that I replied to you can see the user says that Iran should be supported because they oppose global hegemony. That extends far beyond the recent conflict.

    In their mind the USA is the "enemy team" so whoever is up against them they will then be the "good team". That's exactly what the person I replied to is saying. It's frankly sad and morally bankrupt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    In their mind the USA is the “enemy team” so whoever is up against them they will then be the “good team”. That’s exactly what the person I replied to is saying. It’s frankly sad and morally bankrupt.

    Yeah, the global hegemon which has been extracting resources from the rest of the world for the past 70 years is the bad guy. You'd have to have some kind of brain damage to dispute this fact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I made nothing up. Iran didn't begin this conflict. Iran doesn't extend this conflict. Iran has attempted to deepen diplomatic ties with the US for over a decade; it's the US that owns this conflict, full stop. If you want to argue for secularism, by all means, advocate against the ayatollah. If you want to argue for gender equality, LGBTQ+ equality, democracy, by all means, rally against the IRGC. But if you want a little more peace in the world, and not to worry about impending economic collapse from oil disruption, buddy you gotta stand against the US on this one. Bro can be a tankie, he's like 0.2% of the electorate. It's the 33% that want a christian theocracy, and the 1% that'll give it to them for power, that are the real problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -3 points 4 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (6 children)
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Death to America. Death to fascists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    You think America would be anti-west? You think fascists would be anti-west? Are you mentally ill? Do you understand the concept of critical support? Clearly not. Thanks for the useless comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [+] -4 points 4 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

    We dont kill our woman for not wearing head gear. Nor our children when they stand up for our women's right not to wear head gear.

    Under any other circumstances you would be right. America is a shithole, I would agree with you.

    That fact that you decided to make that point on a comment about a woman getting beaten for not wearing a headscarf, (in a place that jailed and killed thousands for similar, with their secret-god-police) tells me all I need to know about you as a person.

    It wasnt that long ago that Mahsa Amini was killed. I will never forget or forgive the well documented violence that Iran perpetrated on its women and it's young and hopeful.

    It's a shit hole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    No, you guys just execute people for being black, assuming you don't put them in modern slave camps.

    Iran is a shithole. The US is a shithole. I wouldn't throw stones if I lived in a house of glass, but you do you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

    Injustice is Injustice and shifting the conversation from one injustice to another is just deflection.

    Like a drunk pilot raving about substance abuse issues in the trucking industry at his trial.

    The post is about Iran.

    The line that sticks with me, always: "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, injustice is injustice. But there's something to be said about the pot calling the kettle black.

    Like a robber telling the pickpocket he's wrong for stealing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›
    42 comments in c/world@lemmy.world view that post