6 ms·

Regime rapes and murders women and children, imprisons thousands, mismanages the economy to the point where millions live in poverty and everyone's life savings

Regime rapes and murders women and children, imprisons thousands, mismanages the economy to the point where millions live in poverty and everyone's life savings are slashed in half , environmental degradation to the point where lakes are drying up, state-sponsored terrorism etc....but hey guys have you "pondered" how bad state collapse would be?

the_af 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please assume good faith and don't incite flamewars. When I'm arguing against wishing for collapse "from the comfort of our countries", where do you read that I'm talking to Iranians? I'm talking to HN commenters who are not from Iran. I'm obviously not arguing with pinkbeanz since he/she is from Iran. Try arguing in good faith, unless you want this to devolve into a flamewar. You already tried something like this in another comment: please stop.
- aliqot 4y ago
  > Please assume good faith and don't incite flamewars. please don't leap behind this when someone engages your comment in an equal tone. mom has nothing to do with this conversation.
  - the_af 4y ago
    What was my tone? "Do not so recklessly wish collapse onto others", is that the tone you object to? I would have thought everyone agreed on this.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      It reads to me like others are talking regime collapse, whereas you're concerned about societal-level collapse. I'd agree few with good intentions would wish for the latter. Regimes can and do collapse without it meaning anything like the level of nationwide chaos and misery you seem to have in mind.
      - the_af 4y ago
        Yes, I think that's what may be happening, at least for the people arguing with me in good faith. In that case, let me be explicit that I'm pessimistic about the current government of Iran (a dictatorship which I'm not in any way in favor of) collapsing without a lot of destruction and bloodshed, and that I do not wish this destruction on the families currently living there. I also fear that if this collapse leaves a power vacuum, something like -- similar, not exactly the same -- ISIS could rise in its place. I'm very pessimistic about this, and so I'm wary of wishing for collapse.
      - TeMPOraL 4y ago
        I interpreted GP as talking specifically about induced regime collapse, specifically one induced externally. As in, not about the regime itself slowly decaying into a more benign form, but rather about attempts to remove it by force. Historically, I can't think of a single case of a regime being destroyed through revolution or invasion that didn't end in at least partial societal collapse and a drastic increase in deaths and suffering for a generation or more.
        wizofaus 4y ago
        The Nazi Reich? Arguably it brought about its own downfall via its misguided attempts at "invasion" - at any rate it was about as violent and sudden an end to a regime as you could ask for. But history is full of coups d'etat that didn't necessarily negatively impact the greater population all that directly.
        TeMPOraL 4y ago
        You're right, Nazi Reich is a valid counterexample to my assertion. It was destroyed by external forces, though as you say it was totally self-inflicted, and a lot of people living under it suffered greatly in the process, but the situation for them improved very quickly. Per my understanding of history, that last part was an anomaly in several ways. This being a world war is one way, of course, but another factor was that the hot war between the Allies and the Axis transformed, after the Axis was defeated, into a cold war between members of the Allies. Both sides of this new conflict considered it critical to capture and stabilize the very territories they helped liberate from the Nazis. This wasn't a half-hearted "nation-building" program like we've been seeing in more recent times - both the US and USSR committed tremendous amounts of resources to get Europe back into shape, because this was still a war - arguably the same war, just going through a cool-down period - and both sides expected it to go hot eventually. Also, while Germany survived the death of Nazi regime quite well, the Cold War is also known for US and USSR sponsoring and orchestrating coups and regime changes all around the world, and (AFAIK) those cases all ended badly for the locals. In some sense, it might be that World War II was itself an anomaly - I can't think of any other war that ended with both the winners and the losers coming out better off. But it's also worth remembering that WWII itself was in large part a consequence of the societal collapse Germany underwent after losing WWI. And the subsequent Cold War was in large part a consequence of societal collapse caused by bloody revolutions in Russia and elsewhere around the start of the 20th century. The way I see it, we have one special case of regime collapse making everyone better off almost immediately, but even that one is surrounded and infused with countless cases of regime changes that caused generations to suffer.
- rolenthedeep 4y ago
  Reframing your argument to avoid accepting new information is not arguing in "good faith" You're in the wrong here, it's time to walk away.
  - the_af 4y ago
    What new information? > You're in the wrong here, it's time to walk away. Nope. The people who are in the wrong are the coach warriors who want to see collapse but aren't unwilling to go fight for it, making arguments from the safety of their countries.
    - Zetobal 4y ago
      Your weapon of choice also seems to be the keyboard.
      - the_af 4y ago
        How so? I'm not calling for any specific course of action, I'm just saying "be thoughtful before arguing in favor of collapse", especially if you don't live in the country under discussion. My "weapon of choice" is calling for restraint before violence.
        kaba0 4y ago
        Inaction is a political choice, you have already taken a side by doing that.
        TeMPOraL 4y ago
        That's the go-to lie of people trying to start civil wars and scare people into taking their side. "If you're not with us, you're against us". "Not taking side is just supporting status quo, which is taking a side". War is peace.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Try arguing in good faith Dropping the use of reality distorting memes like this would be a good place to start, assuming you're actually serious.
  - the_af 4y ago
    What's the reality distortion meme?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - mistermann 4y ago
      "good faith" - it is a highly subjective term, but it is typically used as if it is objective. There is a whole class of reality distorting phrases like this in Western culture[1], this sort of thing has always been with us but seems to have taken on much more causal significance with the rise of the internet. [1] Possibly related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel
      - the_af 4y ago
        Instead of replying indirectly, please address what I'm saying: what's the actual "reality distortion meme" I'm deploying here? Be upfront and accuse me of something I can defend myself of. > "good faith" - it is a highly subjective term HN defines is pretty clearly (note there's more, I'm just quoting some parts): > "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes." So snark replies are out. > "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." So calling someone an Iranian secret police agent is out. > "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." So instead of cross-examining me or trying to "catch me" somehow, address the fact I'm calling for nonviolence and restraint, and that I claim recent experience in the Middle East shows that regional collapse leads to the rise of fundamentalist groups and a general rise of unchecked violence. Assume good faith; assume I want the common good. If I made a mistake, reason with me. If you are an Iranian, don't withhold this information from me until we are 10-levels into a nested discussion. > "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes." Self-explanatory. I'd say name-dropping "reality distortion memes" is one such internet trope (one, to be frank, I still don't understand because you haven't explained). Need I go on?
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  >please assume good faith ... >Try arguing in good faith
Slava_Propanei 4y ago
[dead]
erenyeager 4y ago
Method matters. If people overthrow the government in violence, then it is just another turn of the revolving door of violence. What will happen to the former partisans and supporters of the old guard? Not to mention, if a movement without sufficient ability to take power rises and fails, the loss in life and chaos in society will be far worse than the status quo. Iran is not starvation level desperate, nor people trapped under earthquake rubble desperate, to my knowledge, so I do not expect a successful popular movement without buy in from the elite and military classes of the country.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  So, what method do you propose? Harsh language?
  - erenyeager 4y ago
    Patience
    - actionfromafar 4y ago
      Wow... I'm not sure what to say. How many decades more, for instance?
    - kaba0 4y ago
      Yeah, I’m sure if we would have just waited a few more years, slavery would have also ended, we would have ended child labor, women would be allowed to vote… come on, this is just utterly dumbly naive.
      - TeMPOraL 4y ago
        Can't say much about slavery, but the issues of child labor and women rights weren't solved through a bloody revolution, and there are good arguments that they were primarily the consequence of technological progress fueled by economic growth.

the_af 4y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please assume good faith and don't incite flamewars. When I'm arguing against wishing for collapse "from the comfort of our countries", where do you read that I'm talking to Iranians? I'm talking to HN commenters who are not from Iran. I'm obviously not arguing with pinkbeanz since he/she is from Iran. Try arguing in good faith, unless you want this to devolve into a flamewar. You already tried something like this in another comment: please stop.

aliqot 4y ago
> Please assume good faith and don't incite flamewars. please don't leap behind this when someone engages your comment in an equal tone. mom has nothing to do with this conversation.
- the_af 4y ago
  What was my tone? "Do not so recklessly wish collapse onto others", is that the tone you object to? I would have thought everyone agreed on this.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    It reads to me like others are talking regime collapse, whereas you're concerned about societal-level collapse. I'd agree few with good intentions would wish for the latter. Regimes can and do collapse without it meaning anything like the level of nationwide chaos and misery you seem to have in mind.
    - the_af 4y ago
      Yes, I think that's what may be happening, at least for the people arguing with me in good faith. In that case, let me be explicit that I'm pessimistic about the current government of Iran (a dictatorship which I'm not in any way in favor of) collapsing without a lot of destruction and bloodshed, and that I do not wish this destruction on the families currently living there. I also fear that if this collapse leaves a power vacuum, something like -- similar, not exactly the same -- ISIS could rise in its place. I'm very pessimistic about this, and so I'm wary of wishing for collapse.
    - TeMPOraL 4y ago
      I interpreted GP as talking specifically about induced regime collapse, specifically one induced externally. As in, not about the regime itself slowly decaying into a more benign form, but rather about attempts to remove it by force. Historically, I can't think of a single case of a regime being destroyed through revolution or invasion that didn't end in at least partial societal collapse and a drastic increase in deaths and suffering for a generation or more.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        The Nazi Reich? Arguably it brought about its own downfall via its misguided attempts at "invasion" - at any rate it was about as violent and sudden an end to a regime as you could ask for. But history is full of coups d'etat that didn't necessarily negatively impact the greater population all that directly.
        TeMPOraL 4y ago
        You're right, Nazi Reich is a valid counterexample to my assertion. It was destroyed by external forces, though as you say it was totally self-inflicted, and a lot of people living under it suffered greatly in the process, but the situation for them improved very quickly. Per my understanding of history, that last part was an anomaly in several ways. This being a world war is one way, of course, but another factor was that the hot war between the Allies and the Axis transformed, after the Axis was defeated, into a cold war between members of the Allies. Both sides of this new conflict considered it critical to capture and stabilize the very territories they helped liberate from the Nazis. This wasn't a half-hearted "nation-building" program like we've been seeing in more recent times - both the US and USSR committed tremendous amounts of resources to get Europe back into shape, because this was still a war - arguably the same war, just going through a cool-down period - and both sides expected it to go hot eventually. Also, while Germany survived the death of Nazi regime quite well, the Cold War is also known for US and USSR sponsoring and orchestrating coups and regime changes all around the world, and (AFAIK) those cases all ended badly for the locals. In some sense, it might be that World War II was itself an anomaly - I can't think of any other war that ended with both the winners and the losers coming out better off. But it's also worth remembering that WWII itself was in large part a consequence of the societal collapse Germany underwent after losing WWI. And the subsequent Cold War was in large part a consequence of societal collapse caused by bloody revolutions in Russia and elsewhere around the start of the 20th century. The way I see it, we have one special case of regime collapse making everyone better off almost immediately, but even that one is surrounded and infused with countless cases of regime changes that caused generations to suffer.
rolenthedeep 4y ago
Reframing your argument to avoid accepting new information is not arguing in "good faith" You're in the wrong here, it's time to walk away.
- the_af 4y ago
  What new information? > You're in the wrong here, it's time to walk away. Nope. The people who are in the wrong are the coach warriors who want to see collapse but aren't unwilling to go fight for it, making arguments from the safety of their countries.
  - Zetobal 4y ago
    Your weapon of choice also seems to be the keyboard.
    - the_af 4y ago
      How so? I'm not calling for any specific course of action, I'm just saying "be thoughtful before arguing in favor of collapse", especially if you don't live in the country under discussion. My "weapon of choice" is calling for restraint before violence.
      - kaba0 4y ago
        Inaction is a political choice, you have already taken a side by doing that.
        TeMPOraL 4y ago
        That's the go-to lie of people trying to start civil wars and scare people into taking their side. "If you're not with us, you're against us". "Not taking side is just supporting status quo, which is taking a side". War is peace.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mistermann 4y ago
> Try arguing in good faith Dropping the use of reality distorting memes like this would be a good place to start, assuming you're actually serious.
- the_af 4y ago
  What's the reality distortion meme?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mistermann 4y ago
    "good faith" - it is a highly subjective term, but it is typically used as if it is objective. There is a whole class of reality distorting phrases like this in Western culture[1], this sort of thing has always been with us but seems to have taken on much more causal significance with the rise of the internet. [1] Possibly related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel
    - the_af 4y ago
      Instead of replying indirectly, please address what I'm saying: what's the actual "reality distortion meme" I'm deploying here? Be upfront and accuse me of something I can defend myself of. > "good faith" - it is a highly subjective term HN defines is pretty clearly (note there's more, I'm just quoting some parts): > "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes." So snark replies are out. > "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." So calling someone an Iranian secret police agent is out. > "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." So instead of cross-examining me or trying to "catch me" somehow, address the fact I'm calling for nonviolence and restraint, and that I claim recent experience in the Middle East shows that regional collapse leads to the rise of fundamentalist groups and a general rise of unchecked violence. Assume good faith; assume I want the common good. If I made a mistake, reason with me. If you are an Iranian, don't withhold this information from me until we are 10-levels into a nested discussion. > "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes." Self-explanatory. I'd say name-dropping "reality distortion memes" is one such internet trope (one, to be frank, I still don't understand because you haven't explained). Need I go on?
SuoDuanDao 4y ago
>please assume good faith ... >Try arguing in good faith

Slava_Propanei 4y ago

[dead]

erenyeager 4y ago

Method matters. If people overthrow the government in violence, then it is just another turn of the revolving door of violence. What will happen to the former partisans and supporters of the old guard? Not to mention, if a movement without sufficient ability to take power rises and fails, the loss in life and chaos in society will be far worse than the status quo. Iran is not starvation level desperate, nor people trapped under earthquake rubble desperate, to my knowledge, so I do not expect a successful popular movement without buy in from the elite and military classes of the country.

actionfromafar 4y ago
So, what method do you propose? Harsh language?
- erenyeager 4y ago
  Patience
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Wow... I'm not sure what to say. How many decades more, for instance?
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Yeah, I’m sure if we would have just waited a few more years, slavery would have also ended, we would have ended child labor, women would be allowed to vote… come on, this is just utterly dumbly naive.
    - TeMPOraL 4y ago
      Can't say much about slavery, but the issues of child labor and women rights weren't solved through a bloody revolution, and there are good arguments that they were primarily the consequence of technological progress fueled by economic growth.