3 ms·

This is a complete non-sequitur.

throwanem 6y ago
It really isn't. In both cases there is the identical desire to define some arbitrary point in time, before which all that transpired is mere "history", having no meaningful bearing on anything after. Which makes no sense, of course. You might just as well answer a "you break it, you buy it" sign in a shop with the claim that whatever breakage may or may not have happened, it's well in the past now, and there's no point trying on that basis to ascribe any kind of responsibility for the current situation to anyone except the shopkeeper, who clearly sees no problem with trying to sell broken merchandise. That doesn't strike me as an argument that would, or should, get anyone very far.
- totalZero 6y ago
  The fact that a country or group of countries maintain economic sanctions on the country in 2020, tells us little about who dismantled its old regime in 1979. The commenter also plastered the same embargo commentary elsewhere in this post -- demonstrating its lack of specificity -- and makes no attempt to link the presence of sanctions to causality for the revolution. So yeah...it's a non-sequitur.
buran77 6y ago
It isn't. You implied 2 things: > It seems like a "butterfly effect" argument The butterfly effect describes how a minor change in the current state of a system might lead to a huge change in a future state. But here we're talking about huge changes to begin with. Why do you expect that changes with such massive impact would have anything but visible and long lasting effects on every aspect of that system, including future choices? > The Shah was ousted by Iranians and the new regime was put into place by Iranians. The revolution was expressly anti-American This is how manipulation works. Someone appears to make a choice because they're manipulated into making it but they do it without understanding the full consequences and implications of their choice, that they were manipulated into making it, or by whom. And when you're dealing with such outside interference all bets are off. Even if the decision was taken by the individual citizens, they are in general ill-equipped to deal with such planned large scale manipulation. And it's exactly what the manipulators are counting on. Look at the Russian interference in US elections. If a witness provides false testimony and evidence against you to a jury, who subsequently finds you guilty, who is to blame? The jury? The witness? You? And if your imprisonment has visible and long lasting effects on your life would you consider that point a pivotal one that forever influenced your future and future choices, or one that needlessly blurs the definition of "causality"?
- totalZero 6y ago
  The problem with determining causality through a "butterfly effect" lens is that the criterion is too sensitive. The question of "what is a cause" loses all meaning when every past event is treated as the cause of every future event. That's what I mean by "blurring the definition of 'causality.'" Please don't intentionally misinterpret what I'm saying (see your last sentence). People are responsible for the outcomes of their decisions, manipulated or not. Even today, the Iranian government manipulates the superstitions and fears of the Iranian people. Still, the actors who put that government in power were millions of Iranians -- not just Western government actors. > here we're talking about huge changes to begin with. In the article, some historians are mentioned as advancing the idea that Western powers are to blame for everything that happened in the timeline of Iran's government, and that's simply not true. There are clear differences between the removal of Mosaddegh and the removal of Mohammad Reza Shah. The removal of Mohammad Reza Shah was, as you say, huge. It's hard to justify the blaming of such a huge action on a few Westerners, but that's precisely the stance ascribed to historians in the article. > If a witness provides false testimony and evidence against you to a jury, who subsequently finds you guilty, who is to blame? The jury? The witness? You? I'm not sure I understand what your point is here. Whether you blame the Iranian people or a group of cleric manipulators, the fact remains that millions of Iranians removed the Shah in a drawn-out upheaval process that was remarkably different than what happened in 1953. That's one of the points of contention mentioned in the article. > if your imprisonment has visible and long lasting effects on your life This kind of emotionally charged approach to evaluating history is not useful because it clouds our ability to examine what actually happened. Essentially you are saying, "the long-term outcome of the Revolution should affect our analysis of the lead-up to the Revolution." However, in the 1970s the Iranian people did not know what the future held. They only knew what they had (the Shah) and what they wanted (not the Shah).
  - buran77 6y ago
    > blaming of such a huge action on a few Westerners You're looking at this as if it was a literal tug-of-war game where "a few" can't beat the many due to the laws of physics. Yet the reality we live in thoroughly contradicts you at every step. If the "few" can apply pressure at precise points and in precise ways then a lot can be achieved. Look no further than lobbying where "a few" people have far more power than a country's worth of citizens. For example they may de-prioritize education because a population with close to total zero understanding of the world is far easier to steer whichever way the "few" want. > This kind of emotionally charged approach You're free to make it as emotional as you want. I gave it as an objective example that destroyed the foundation of your line of argumentation. So call it what you may but you still haven't come up with anything that can stand up to even cursory scrutiny. Personal opinions and interpretations are not that.

It really isn't. In both cases there is the identical desire to define some arbitrary point in time, before which all that transpired is mere "history", having no meaningful bearing on anything after. Which makes no sense, of course. You might just as well answer a "you break it, you buy it" sign in a shop with the claim that whatever breakage may or may not have happened, it's well in the past now, and there's no point trying on that basis to ascribe any kind of responsibility for the current situation to anyone except the shopkeeper, who clearly sees no problem with trying to sell broken merchandise. That doesn't strike me as an argument that would, or should, get anyone very far.

totalZero 6y ago
The fact that a country or group of countries maintain economic sanctions on the country in 2020, tells us little about who dismantled its old regime in 1979. The commenter also plastered the same embargo commentary elsewhere in this post -- demonstrating its lack of specificity -- and makes no attempt to link the presence of sanctions to causality for the revolution. So yeah...it's a non-sequitur.

buran77 6y ago

It isn't. You implied 2 things: > It seems like a "butterfly effect" argument The butterfly effect describes how a minor change in the current state of a system might lead to a huge change in a future state. But here we're talking about huge changes to begin with. Why do you expect that changes with such massive impact would have anything but visible and long lasting effects on every aspect of that system, including future choices? > The Shah was ousted by Iranians and the new regime was put into place by Iranians. The revolution was expressly anti-American This is how manipulation works. Someone appears to make a choice because they're manipulated into making it but they do it without understanding the full consequences and implications of their choice, that they were manipulated into making it, or by whom. And when you're dealing with such outside interference all bets are off. Even if the decision was taken by the individual citizens, they are in general ill-equipped to deal with such planned large scale manipulation. And it's exactly what the manipulators are counting on. Look at the Russian interference in US elections. If a witness provides false testimony and evidence against you to a jury, who subsequently finds you guilty, who is to blame? The jury? The witness? You? And if your imprisonment has visible and long lasting effects on your life would you consider that point a pivotal one that forever influenced your future and future choices, or one that needlessly blurs the definition of "causality"?

totalZero 6y ago
The problem with determining causality through a "butterfly effect" lens is that the criterion is too sensitive. The question of "what is a cause" loses all meaning when every past event is treated as the cause of every future event. That's what I mean by "blurring the definition of 'causality.'" Please don't intentionally misinterpret what I'm saying (see your last sentence). People are responsible for the outcomes of their decisions, manipulated or not. Even today, the Iranian government manipulates the superstitions and fears of the Iranian people. Still, the actors who put that government in power were millions of Iranians -- not just Western government actors. > here we're talking about huge changes to begin with. In the article, some historians are mentioned as advancing the idea that Western powers are to blame for everything that happened in the timeline of Iran's government, and that's simply not true. There are clear differences between the removal of Mosaddegh and the removal of Mohammad Reza Shah. The removal of Mohammad Reza Shah was, as you say, huge. It's hard to justify the blaming of such a huge action on a few Westerners, but that's precisely the stance ascribed to historians in the article. > If a witness provides false testimony and evidence against you to a jury, who subsequently finds you guilty, who is to blame? The jury? The witness? You? I'm not sure I understand what your point is here. Whether you blame the Iranian people or a group of cleric manipulators, the fact remains that millions of Iranians removed the Shah in a drawn-out upheaval process that was remarkably different than what happened in 1953. That's one of the points of contention mentioned in the article. > if your imprisonment has visible and long lasting effects on your life This kind of emotionally charged approach to evaluating history is not useful because it clouds our ability to examine what actually happened. Essentially you are saying, "the long-term outcome of the Revolution should affect our analysis of the lead-up to the Revolution." However, in the 1970s the Iranian people did not know what the future held. They only knew what they had (the Shah) and what they wanted (not the Shah).
- buran77 6y ago
  > blaming of such a huge action on a few Westerners You're looking at this as if it was a literal tug-of-war game where "a few" can't beat the many due to the laws of physics. Yet the reality we live in thoroughly contradicts you at every step. If the "few" can apply pressure at precise points and in precise ways then a lot can be achieved. Look no further than lobbying where "a few" people have far more power than a country's worth of citizens. For example they may de-prioritize education because a population with close to total zero understanding of the world is far easier to steer whichever way the "few" want. > This kind of emotionally charged approach You're free to make it as emotional as you want. I gave it as an objective example that destroyed the foundation of your line of argumentation. So call it what you may but you still haven't come up with anything that can stand up to even cursory scrutiny. Personal opinions and interpretations are not that.