6 ms·

Don't put pointless sanctions on them?

anonymousab 5y ago
It's not pointless. The people are the power of any government and the US is saying that they don't want to interact with this government or people until they change certain things. It is selfish and demanding and bullying, but it's not pointless. Iran and its people can change things to pursue further interaction with the US sphere of business influence or they can choose to go their own way. It is nonviolent pressure towards one of two outcomes where either is acceptable to the US.
- pyrale 5y ago
  > It is nonviolent pressure Violence isn't restricted to physical harm, though. Bullying people is a violent process.
  - grayhatter 5y ago
    > Violence is the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy. -- Wikipedia All my sources seem to disagree with you.
    - creddit 5y ago
      It's a very contemporary interpretation of violence that has gained a lot of steam, though it is in opposition to historical use. For example, in many situations today, people will consider "silence to be violence".
      - grayhatter 5y ago
        rhetorically I might agree but only in the context of obviously misusing the language to make a point. ethically I don't agree that inaction is as bad as action, only that it's close. silence could be apathy and apathy + inaction cannot reasonably can be considered violent
        creddit 5y ago
        I'm not making a claim of validity. I'm pointing out how the term "violence" has evolved in contemporary society.
      - pyrale 5y ago
        The evolution of what people understand as violence simply evolved hand in hand with the evolution of our understanding of medical conditions, especially psychiatric disorders. For instance, it's also a very contemporary thing to avoid calling war vets wimps, but it's better explained by the evolution of our understanding of their condition than by an ideological plot to reframe discourse.
        creddit 5y ago
        > ... than by an ideological plot to reframe discourse. You seem to have read a lot into what I wrote. You're in basic agreement that "violence" in contemporary understanding has evolved to include non-physical contexts but you seem to have imputed that I have the belief that it is due to an "ideological plot to reframe discourse". That's odd and completely absent from any statement I've made.
        pyrale 5y ago
        > You seem to have read a lot into what I wrote. My apologies, then. That part of the answer was in response to the general reaction to what I meant to be an uncontroversial statement. I should have clarified that it wasn't yours.
    - filleduchaos 5y ago
      Why leave out the very next sentence in your source? > Other definitions are also used, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation." Sanctions _are_ backed by the threat of very real physical force and power. Pretty much all state violence is.
      - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        This just seems like it stretches the concept of "violence" to the point of uselessness. If I went to a store and refused to leave at closing time, they'd eventually call the police to drag me out - does that mean closing times are violence?
        filleduchaos 5y ago
        Does the store own and control the police? Why do people insist on making these trite comparisons between businesses and literal governments, especially governments that are straight up among the most powerful entities on the planet?
        SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        A lot of us just don't agree with the perspective that businesses and governments are on separate planes of existence and shouldn't be compared. I'm not sure how to close the inferential gap here.
        filleduchaos 5y ago
        But they straight up are on separate planes of existence. Then again I keep forgetting that I am often talking to people who are so removed from the ill effects of the state that they can even begin to think that a company's actions can ever compare.
      - 5y ago
    - pasquinelli 5y ago
      people die because of sanctions, and they're only respected because of the threat of violence. so who cares what your sources say about the definition of the word violence?
- pasquinelli 5y ago
  it's not pointless, but it isn't non-violent either.
  - anonymousab 5y ago
    I meant violence as a term for physical force and related actions, but I should have been more explicit about that. I 100% agree that it is not peaceful, I think I just (incorrectly) assumed a specific definition of the word.
bmcahren 5y ago
It's about discouraging/preventing their citizens from collaborating, educating, and applying US code with the intent of harming Iran as a government. It's big picture and definitely not pointless to do this to the ITAR countries.

It's not pointless. The people are the power of any government and the US is saying that they don't want to interact with this government or people until they change certain things. It is selfish and demanding and bullying, but it's not pointless. Iran and its people can change things to pursue further interaction with the US sphere of business influence or they can choose to go their own way. It is nonviolent pressure towards one of two outcomes where either is acceptable to the US.

pyrale 5y ago
> It is nonviolent pressure Violence isn't restricted to physical harm, though. Bullying people is a violent process.
- grayhatter 5y ago
  > Violence is the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy. -- Wikipedia All my sources seem to disagree with you.
  - creddit 5y ago
    It's a very contemporary interpretation of violence that has gained a lot of steam, though it is in opposition to historical use. For example, in many situations today, people will consider "silence to be violence".
    - grayhatter 5y ago
      rhetorically I might agree but only in the context of obviously misusing the language to make a point. ethically I don't agree that inaction is as bad as action, only that it's close. silence could be apathy and apathy + inaction cannot reasonably can be considered violent
      - creddit 5y ago
        I'm not making a claim of validity. I'm pointing out how the term "violence" has evolved in contemporary society.
    - pyrale 5y ago
      The evolution of what people understand as violence simply evolved hand in hand with the evolution of our understanding of medical conditions, especially psychiatric disorders. For instance, it's also a very contemporary thing to avoid calling war vets wimps, but it's better explained by the evolution of our understanding of their condition than by an ideological plot to reframe discourse.
      - creddit 5y ago
        > ... than by an ideological plot to reframe discourse. You seem to have read a lot into what I wrote. You're in basic agreement that "violence" in contemporary understanding has evolved to include non-physical contexts but you seem to have imputed that I have the belief that it is due to an "ideological plot to reframe discourse". That's odd and completely absent from any statement I've made.
        pyrale 5y ago
        > You seem to have read a lot into what I wrote. My apologies, then. That part of the answer was in response to the general reaction to what I meant to be an uncontroversial statement. I should have clarified that it wasn't yours.
  - filleduchaos 5y ago
    Why leave out the very next sentence in your source? > Other definitions are also used, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation." Sanctions _are_ backed by the threat of very real physical force and power. Pretty much all state violence is.
    - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
      This just seems like it stretches the concept of "violence" to the point of uselessness. If I went to a store and refused to leave at closing time, they'd eventually call the police to drag me out - does that mean closing times are violence?
      - filleduchaos 5y ago
        Does the store own and control the police? Why do people insist on making these trite comparisons between businesses and literal governments, especially governments that are straight up among the most powerful entities on the planet?
        SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        A lot of us just don't agree with the perspective that businesses and governments are on separate planes of existence and shouldn't be compared. I'm not sure how to close the inferential gap here.
        filleduchaos 5y ago
        But they straight up are on separate planes of existence. Then again I keep forgetting that I am often talking to people who are so removed from the ill effects of the state that they can even begin to think that a company's actions can ever compare.
    - 5y ago
  - pasquinelli 5y ago
    people die because of sanctions, and they're only respected because of the threat of violence. so who cares what your sources say about the definition of the word violence?
pasquinelli 5y ago
it's not pointless, but it isn't non-violent either.
- anonymousab 5y ago
  I meant violence as a term for physical force and related actions, but I should have been more explicit about that. I 100% agree that it is not peaceful, I think I just (incorrectly) assumed a specific definition of the word.

bmcahren 5y ago

It's about discouraging/preventing their citizens from collaborating, educating, and applying US code with the intent of harming Iran as a government. It's big picture and definitely not pointless to do this to the ITAR countries.