6 ms·

If you've been following Iranian social media, they don't want hijab reforms, they want this regime gone. And this is their Berlin wall moment.

by brap 4y ago

baandam 4y ago
einpoklum 4y ago
Well, if you've been following Iranian elections you might reach the opposite conclusion... Now, I'm no fan of the Iranian regime, but I doubt you can make trustworthy conclusions about what the public wants from sampling posts on social media. (I wouldn't say that even elections are the end-all of what "the public wants".)
- tartoran 4y ago
  No, I think you could tell quite well what people want when they put their lives on the line to make a change. Im sure there is a part of the population that is vested with the current system but that is generally a smaller part that is working in that system and which is somewhat propped up by manipulted rural masses who may also have had enough of this too.
  - petesergeant 4y ago
    > what people want when they put their lives on the line to make a change [removed: a reference to The Troubles] A minority of people can feel very, very strongly about something without the majority of people feeling that way. > [the] part of the population [that supports the Iranian regime] is generally a smaller part Happy to believe that, but where’s the data? That some people are clearly very angry at the monstrous and evil regime there doesn’t imply that it’s the majority or even close to.
    - dontbenebby 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - vidarh 4y ago
        Here[1] is a poll from yesterday showing 50% would still like to stay in the UK vs. 27% wanting reunification, even with Brexit. It seems reasonable to assume they know what they want. [1] https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/reunification-poll-1400703.html https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/reunification-poll-14007...
      - grumpymouse 4y ago
        Yes, historically 50% or above of people in NI have wanted to be part of the uk and considered themselves British (often to the point of marching around waving Union Jacks etc). Over time that number has gone down relative to people who consider themselves Irish but the numbers are still fairly equal.
        kelipso 4y ago
        Aren't most of those people waving Union Jacks genetically/ethnically Anglo? As in they are descendants of people from England.
        grumpymouse 4y ago
        Some from an English background, some from a Scottish background. Parts of the north of Ireland were colonised by Britain in the early 1600s - have a look at the Wikipedia articles for ‘Plantation of Ulster’ and ‘Ulster Protestants’
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        Similarly to descendants of Russians in Donbass or Transnistria. Or the elective majority in North America. Descendants of the people displaced and oppressed are still here, in radically reduced number. The same story has played out all over the world, for tens of millennia. It is not less objectionable for that.
- Denvercoder9 4y ago
  I wouldn't attach any meaning to an election that didn't allow most candidates to run, had the lowest turnout in history, and still ended up with a significant amount of blank/invalid votes, despite that being explicitly forbidden.
  - socialdemocrat 4y ago
    It is a variant of the US system, rather than the rich picking the candidates who can run, the priests do. Sorry, I am teasing but I want to highlight that the problem with pre-selected candidates is a widespread problem undermining democracy in many places. Same applies to Hong Kong were China heavily influenced candidate selection.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      That's a ridiculous exaggeration. People vote in the primaries as well. Except for Thiel, rich people were uniformly against Trump being nominated.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        It isn't universally that way: Trump showed how to subvert the system. But the 2016 election showed how the powerful elites in the Democratic party subverted the people's will and installed an extremely unpopular candidate they wanted. Then of course the people spoke in the general election that they didn't want her, and disaster ensued. In most elections, the candidates were ones the rich elites wanted there. But there have been exceptions.
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
        > But the 2016 election showed how the powerful elites in the Democratic party subverted the people's will and installed an extremely unpopular candidate they wanted. Utter nonsense. Clinton beat the next candidate by a double digit vote percentage in the primaries. That's a landslide. Sanders won a bunch of party caucuses, and it's caucuses that ignore the will of the people and only consider the preferences of party insiders. The only reason you believe the will of the people was subverted was that you were hoodwinked by a coordinated social media campaign whose purpose was to destabilize the democracy.
- enkid 4y ago
  Isn't the entire elections system built to reinforce regime legitimacy? All of the candidates have to be approved by the Guardian Council which is controlled by the Supreme Leader, so it's not like they have any threat to the regime itself. It's a way to appear willing to reform without actually reforming.
  - cies 4y ago
    Fucked up election systems everywhere. If there are basically only two parties by the way the counting works, then the those two parties can do the "approval of candidates" internally. Main difference being that one system is run by religious group, and the other by the influence of the super-party-donors (aka capitalists). Either way reform does not happen. Political prisoners (Assange in the west) still rotting in jail. Change is a word reserved manly for election rally banners, once elected they seem to change as little of the status quo as they can get away with.
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      No, you don’t get executed in the US for saying “down with Biden/Trump/whoever.” This “all imperfect systems are equally imperfect” is utterly detached from reality.
      - cies 4y ago
        You are right in the US you can say that. But showing how the govt is criminally scheming against the people gets you in jail just as much. Ask Assange. > This “all imperfect systems are equally imperfect” is utterly detached from reality. I wanted to say they are similar in resisting reform. Sorry if that was not clear.
        smugma 4y ago
        The fallacy you’ve restated is called false equivalence.
        ethanbond 4y ago
- hnarn 4y ago
  Your comment is suggesting a view of the Iranian elections that is completely separated from reality. Iran is classified as a totalitarian state[1], with only 11 countries in the world getting a lower rating in 2021. The fact that you've been "following" the elections, and you seem to claim that you can draw any meaningful conclusion about them regarding what people in Iran think of their leadership, is simply ridiculous. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
FollowingTheDao 4y ago
Ha! Follow social media? You mean the one with all the government run bots?
- timcavel 4y ago
stiltzkin 4y ago
American social media doesn't have a good reputation.
DoItToMe81 4y ago
No it's not. They are not conceding.

If you've been following Iranian social media, they don't want hijab reforms, they want this regime gone. And this is their Berlin wall moment.

by brap 4y ago

If you've been following Iranian social media, they don't want hijab reforms, they want this regime gone. And this is their Berlin wall moment.

baandam 4y ago

einpoklum 4y ago

Well, if you've been following Iranian elections you might reach the opposite conclusion... Now, I'm no fan of the Iranian regime, but I doubt you can make trustworthy conclusions about what the public wants from sampling posts on social media. (I wouldn't say that even elections are the end-all of what "the public wants".)

tartoran 4y ago
No, I think you could tell quite well what people want when they put their lives on the line to make a change. Im sure there is a part of the population that is vested with the current system but that is generally a smaller part that is working in that system and which is somewhat propped up by manipulted rural masses who may also have had enough of this too.
- petesergeant 4y ago
  > what people want when they put their lives on the line to make a change [removed: a reference to The Troubles] A minority of people can feel very, very strongly about something without the majority of people feeling that way. > [the] part of the population [that supports the Iranian regime] is generally a smaller part Happy to believe that, but where’s the data? That some people are clearly very angry at the monstrous and evil regime there doesn’t imply that it’s the majority or even close to.
  - dontbenebby 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - vidarh 4y ago
      Here[1] is a poll from yesterday showing 50% would still like to stay in the UK vs. 27% wanting reunification, even with Brexit. It seems reasonable to assume they know what they want. [1] https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/reunification-poll-1400703.html https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/reunification-poll-14007...
    - grumpymouse 4y ago
      Yes, historically 50% or above of people in NI have wanted to be part of the uk and considered themselves British (often to the point of marching around waving Union Jacks etc). Over time that number has gone down relative to people who consider themselves Irish but the numbers are still fairly equal.
      - kelipso 4y ago
        Aren't most of those people waving Union Jacks genetically/ethnically Anglo? As in they are descendants of people from England.
        grumpymouse 4y ago
        Some from an English background, some from a Scottish background. Parts of the north of Ireland were colonised by Britain in the early 1600s - have a look at the Wikipedia articles for ‘Plantation of Ulster’ and ‘Ulster Protestants’
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        Similarly to descendants of Russians in Donbass or Transnistria. Or the elective majority in North America. Descendants of the people displaced and oppressed are still here, in radically reduced number. The same story has played out all over the world, for tens of millennia. It is not less objectionable for that.
Denvercoder9 4y ago
I wouldn't attach any meaning to an election that didn't allow most candidates to run, had the lowest turnout in history, and still ended up with a significant amount of blank/invalid votes, despite that being explicitly forbidden.
- socialdemocrat 4y ago
  It is a variant of the US system, rather than the rich picking the candidates who can run, the priests do. Sorry, I am teasing but I want to highlight that the problem with pre-selected candidates is a widespread problem undermining democracy in many places. Same applies to Hong Kong were China heavily influenced candidate selection.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    That's a ridiculous exaggeration. People vote in the primaries as well. Except for Thiel, rich people were uniformly against Trump being nominated.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      It isn't universally that way: Trump showed how to subvert the system. But the 2016 election showed how the powerful elites in the Democratic party subverted the people's will and installed an extremely unpopular candidate they wanted. Then of course the people spoke in the general election that they didn't want her, and disaster ensued. In most elections, the candidates were ones the rich elites wanted there. But there have been exceptions.
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
        > But the 2016 election showed how the powerful elites in the Democratic party subverted the people's will and installed an extremely unpopular candidate they wanted. Utter nonsense. Clinton beat the next candidate by a double digit vote percentage in the primaries. That's a landslide. Sanders won a bunch of party caucuses, and it's caucuses that ignore the will of the people and only consider the preferences of party insiders. The only reason you believe the will of the people was subverted was that you were hoodwinked by a coordinated social media campaign whose purpose was to destabilize the democracy.
enkid 4y ago
Isn't the entire elections system built to reinforce regime legitimacy? All of the candidates have to be approved by the Guardian Council which is controlled by the Supreme Leader, so it's not like they have any threat to the regime itself. It's a way to appear willing to reform without actually reforming.
- cies 4y ago
  Fucked up election systems everywhere. If there are basically only two parties by the way the counting works, then the those two parties can do the "approval of candidates" internally. Main difference being that one system is run by religious group, and the other by the influence of the super-party-donors (aka capitalists). Either way reform does not happen. Political prisoners (Assange in the west) still rotting in jail. Change is a word reserved manly for election rally banners, once elected they seem to change as little of the status quo as they can get away with.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    No, you don’t get executed in the US for saying “down with Biden/Trump/whoever.” This “all imperfect systems are equally imperfect” is utterly detached from reality.
    - cies 4y ago
      You are right in the US you can say that. But showing how the govt is criminally scheming against the people gets you in jail just as much. Ask Assange. > This “all imperfect systems are equally imperfect” is utterly detached from reality. I wanted to say they are similar in resisting reform. Sorry if that was not clear.
      - smugma 4y ago
        The fallacy you’ve restated is called false equivalence.
      - ethanbond 4y ago
hnarn 4y ago
Your comment is suggesting a view of the Iranian elections that is completely separated from reality. Iran is classified as a totalitarian state[1], with only 11 countries in the world getting a lower rating in 2021. The fact that you've been "following" the elections, and you seem to claim that you can draw any meaningful conclusion about them regarding what people in Iran think of their leadership, is simply ridiculous. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

FollowingTheDao 4y ago

Ha! Follow social media? You mean the one with all the government run bots?

timcavel 4y ago

stiltzkin 4y ago

American social media doesn't have a good reputation.

DoItToMe81 4y ago

No it's not. They are not conceding.